Please try to defer your recalcitrant overview and understanding.
Your micromanagement and unnecessary belaborement of this non-Reisner issue is a waste of time.
To summarize your view, let's just get to the point, shall we?
You think Reisner is a charlatan, and your using this as a support to say if he is one so must Vyse be, or moreso, so is every Egyptologist. So now that Vyse is a charlatan by this association you conclude the cartouche is a fake.
I am trying to find a complimentary word to describe your argument, however I am sorry to report the only one I can come up with is 'idiocy'.
Your inability to recognize a false front for substatiating a context is beguiling. Reisner made an error. It got updated. It may get updated again. That's science. More impotantly this whole line of debate is a useless foundation to butress a faked cartouche. The relevance of the association is utterly void.