Your model poorly attempts to reconcile the seventy years with the secular data by claiming that this period was a period of servitude only and not recognizing that it was a period of servitude-exile-desolation in its entirety.
I will assume that where you typed "poorly", you meant "successfully" because otherwise you are just wrong. My model takes into account the definitions of the relevant words, the clear text of Jeremiah 25:12, the consistent application of the 70 years to Jerusalem and other nations (such as Tyre), and the inclusion for part of that period for paying off Sabbaths. Conversely, the WT model is problematic regarding all of these issues.
The Bible does not say that 'calling into account the king of Babylon' terminated the seventy years for the only event that terminated the period was the return of the exiles under the new king of Babylon namely Cyrus.
No, it says "when seventy years have been fulfilled I shall call to account against the king of Babylon". The quite clear reading is that the seventy years would be finished when the king of Babylon was called to account. This is quite clearly confirmed in Daniel chapter 5. Irrespective of over what period for which Babylon's judgement would continue, its starting point cannot validly be moved to some point before the end of the seventy years.
My comment should have read '"We do not have ...". A typo only.
It's hard to tell your typos apart from the rest of your incorrect posts.
The secular data contains no reference to Neb's vacant seven years so their integrity is compromised by this omission whereas the Bible does mention this period so its data is superior to the secular for the purposes of chronology.
No other king took Nebuchadnezzar's place during such a time, and there is no reason why the Nebuchadnezzar could not still be officially indicated as king during that time even if he wasn't actually present. Your argument is a red herring.