>Why debate what the timelines implied by various articles are when the primary source is available and makes a clear statement on this matter?
Probably because most of us in the chain you're replying to didn't have the time to read an 84-page source document in the middle of a work day (note the time of our comments and how late to this particular chain you are), hoping that a nugget of information like that would be dropped pretty early on in it. Hence my edit at the end, which I had hoped would have made it clear that I was open to being corrected.
But thank you so much for that snarky comment while you clarified things. You're so much better than us for finding that, how could we have ever been so daft? Forgive us?