Scott is not trying to use this thread to debate the Dialogue of Ipuur. He's trying to broadly present some basic concepts from a book just released that few of us, if any, have yet read.
This theory has foundations that go far beyond the literature of Egyptology. Unlike you, who apparently have a scholarly knowledge of Egyptology, I don't have a scholarly knowledge of any of the relevent disciplines Recovery Vault Theory might rely on.
It's possible that this Dialogue of Ipuur may have no relevence at all, may be relevent but inconclusive, may be relevent but improperly analyzed, or may be relevent, and when properly analyzed may be the smoking gun that destroys Recovery Vault Theory. If it's "smoking gun," I don't get it. If anything else, we need much more detail before drawing any conclusion about the theory.
Why not try to further draw out and explore the broad claims before quibbling about an aspect of one of the many detailed analyses Scott and Gary have made?