1) You (rather Mollier*) have chosen to count the blocks in a straight sequence - 1-12 on one side & 24-13 on the other. Can't see why that particular numbering by the builders would make sense. Except that it kinda works with all sorts of caveats for Mollier*.
2) How do Rowe's numbers fit in here? He presents two more numbers than Perring. Do they fit?
3) Why are there so few blocks with numbers? One might expect to see some more.
4) Where are the missing marks to make the 18 and the 23? You have possibly two numbers that correlate with this particular sequencing but the 8 and the 20 contradict this sequence.
5) Why would 21 be written as 'n | n'? This number looks more like '10' & '11'. It's just not clear what was intended here. '21' would help Mollier's* argument but it's far from certain that this is what was intended. So you have just one clear number (4) correlating. Wooppee-effing-doo. As I said--I've seen better.
So, no. I'm far from convinced and you should stub that cigar out right now.
*EDIT to add: Should read 'Monnier'.
Edited 3 time(s). Last edit at 17-Jun-18 11:47 by Scott Creighton.