> Well, if there were a pharaoh's name, and this is
> alleged to be the others "twin", then we certainly would expect
> to see it in a cartouche....The fact it is not in a cartouche a
> few feet over from one that is supposedly the same exact thing
> seems a little strange to me.
OK, but it is not a pharaoh's name, it is simply (and allegedly) a "gang" signature. Bauvel proposed that the corner glyphs were the gang signature and that a (presumably "Khufu") cartouche was "hidden" under the junction. He drew that conclusion because similar (but not identical) gang glyphs followed the Khufu cartouche on the adjacent block. But we have no proof at all that there is a cartouche hidden under the junction. And if what you are suggesting is true, that those blocks may have been repurposed, then the original alledged cartouche may have been cut off in shaping that corner block.
In other words, on neither block should the gang glyphs be enclosed in a royal oval. The question is whether there is a "hidden" cartouche on the corner block that correspodings to the gang glyphs on that block just as as there is on the adjacent block where both gang glyphs and the Khufu cartouche are visible.