I just wanted to add that you have to consider the extensive measures that were taken to make the revised timeline authentic. Case in point are the tombs at Naqshi-Rustam. Xerxes had faked his own death and claimed to be Artaxerxes. But when he died he was bured in tomb #2 next to Darius I. So we know Artaxerxes succeeded Darius I. After that was buried Darius II. But with the claim that Xerxes was the father of Artaxerxes, it was very obvious from the tombs that Xerxes was skipped. So they dug out another tomb at Naqshi-Rustam. The first three were facing the same direction. Xerxes' new tomb is lower and facing another direction. But he's buried out of place. That's rather drastic.
Or you can consider the astronomical texts. After Xenophon's last revision, apparently some attention during the time of Berossus was paid to the thousands of astronomical texts from the time of Nebuchadnezzar II. Remember, we have thousands of business records from the time of Nebuchadnezzar but no surviving astronomical texts. We know they were extensive because "copies" like the VAT4956 gives us nearly daily recorded observations of several planets, the moon and sun! Where are those thousands of astronomical texts? They are no where to be found.
Even so, we know because some astronomical texts, which were discovered by Ptolemy represent the revised timeline. Thus astronomical texts were revised as well. But if you compare the lunar times in the VAT4956 as well as certain star names, you find that later astronomical texts attempted to revise lunar times and locations as well! That's extensive. The logical reason for doing so would be to authenticate some original astronomical observations that coincidentally fit with the revised timeline.
For instance, in year 2 of Nabonidus was a lunar eclipse that took place in month 6. It was a total lunar eclipse that was near the end of totality just before moonset. This caused a panic and Nabonidus sacrificed his daughter to the Moon god. Basically, they saw the moon turn to blood and then set before turning back. That is the context of the original event in 479 BCE. When the revision of the NB Period was made, year 2 of Nabonidus fell in 554 BCE where coincidentally there was a lunar eclipse that occurred in month 6. The only problem was that the eclipse timing was such that it was not in progress at moonset. But also coincidentally, another eclipse event that got dated to year 7 of Kambyses falling in 523 BCE was an ideal substitute for an eclipse 18 years earlier that fell in year 7 of Nebuchadnezzar, 541 BCE, based on the original dating. But this eclipse originally occurred one hour before midnight. It turned out though that if you adjusted the lunar time of the eclipse in the Nabon 18 for the 2nd of Nabonidus so that it was in progress at moonset, the 523 BCE eclipse could be timed to 1 hour before midnight! So if you changed the lunar times for one, you could have both references work. To help cover for this, the star called the "Rear Foot of the Lion" (GIR ar sa UR-A) was switched from sigma-Leonis to beta-Virginis which makes up for those approximate 16 hours revision of the lunar times. They then made thousands of new tablets using their best predictions for future eclipses that reflected the 16-hour difference. Thing is, though, this occurred after the VAT4956 was created which still referenced the original lunar times and positions. That's why astro programs reflecting on the revised lunar times shows this descrepancy in line 8 of the VAT4956.
Point being, a lot of detailed effort went into authenticating the new chronology at every possible level, from business documents, to astronomical texts, to building inscriptions and all kinds of historical records. So what we have is a well documented revised timeline with few critical surviving documents from the original timeline other than double-dated texts like the SK400 and the VAT4956 that confirm the original chronology.
So again, if any tablets or business documents would have given the revisions away, then they would have been changed or destroyed. Since these tablets reflect the reduced NB timeline, we can confirm they were revised as well.
But, it is not a matter of dismissing these documents as revised or not as much as establishing that they contradict the Bible's own chronology. That is, the relative chronology of the tablets reflect a 26-year shorter NB Period than does Josephus or the Bible. That means either the Jews revised their records or the pagans revised theirs. You have to decide which one revised. The smart choice is the Bible, of course. The Bible inserts 70 years between year 23 of Nebuchadnezzar II and the 1st of Cyrus and confirms that the successor to Darius I in his 6th year was Artaxerxes, Longimanus, who was first known as Xerxes. If you haven't dismissed that or tried to confirm it, then you'll never get the timeline correct.
LS
Lovely spaaaam, wonderful spaaaam!