Try this: Take 20.625 inches for the royal cubit and divide it by 28. This gives a royal cubit digit instead of a remen digit, which I am not especially fond of. Then multiply the digit value by 16 to get the length of the Egyptian foot (again a bit longer than the foot from the remen digit and a bit longer than the Roman foot, which I am also not especially fond of), then multiply this foot value by 56/55. How many inches? Hint: no hair.
16/28 x 56/55 = 32/55 :: 32 RC = 55 ft.
I think Stecchini is almost correct about his royal cubit in metres if the correct metre is used being the MC meter 39.375 inches
0.525 /441 x 440 is Stecchini's shorter RC being 0.523809524 meters of 39.375 feet
This is exactly 20.625 inches and everything balances as it must always do.
the point i make over and over is everyone is correct if the work is interpreted in the correct context.
Stecchini is correct but he was working in units of 441/440 but Berriman worked in units of 440/440.
i have never seen anything by Stecchini but his analysis fits.
I have not yet read your revised article but i am about to.