I've detailed my ammendments for Draft 005 in a seperate pdf which you can retrieve here for your linguistic titulation.
I still have some questions about numerous words that just don't make sense according to the mainstream explanation. The status quo account of zilχ, for instance, is that it's the word for 'praetor' and thus an animate noun. My spidey senses are telling me something disturbing though, that a noun that ends in a patientive suffix -aχ used to make derivative nouns from verbs, that uses an l-genitive normally given to feminines & neuters, and that is attested in the inessive three times screams like an inanimate object more than the term for a person. For now I'm kowtowing to a translation close to standard but still I wonder if this word isn't completely off. Pallottino and other notable experts clumsily tweak the translation for those special 'inessive' instances of zilcθi I just mentioned, claiming it means 'reign' instead, as in "in the reign". So which one is it? 'Praetor' or 'reign'?
Of course, I find the whole thing suspicious, especially in the context of all the other mistranslated words and dubious connections made over the decades that still find their way into 21st-century print. Oh well, as always, I strive to learn more while vocalizing my finds to those that might want to learn along with me. That for me is the whole point of my bombastic project. That, and... I like to make trouble :)