I'm sure the fact that the evidence is insufficient to say anything assertively, dominates the response. I have also now found other articles that link the dual Aramaic/Hebrew composition with Qumran as well as numerous verbal similarities. FF Bruce many years ago assumed a Zadokite author, (TofR is understood as such, central issue for the community). Bruce never connects the TofR with the author directly but attribute to him interpretations unique to the community that envisioned a restoration soon. They saw the efforts of the Maccabees up to that point as "little help" but their hopes were with heavenly intervention. It also is suggested a reinterpretation subsequent the failure of the expectations. A more sectarian symbolic one after the Maccabees proved to be successful but corruption ensued.
In all, I like the suggestion that the TofR was the author/redactor but his identity unsurprisingly is lost to time and probably was unknown at the time it was "unsealed". Such is the point of pseudonymity.
I find the idea very attractive; all the ingredients are there, a charismatic homeless priest leads a movement of disillusioned and distraught pietists and a new document is 'unsealed' containing exactly what the group wants to hear, that soon Michael in some such way will be responsible for the end of distress and the glorification of the holy ones. That document is a pastiche of Daniel cycle material that was preexisting but not regarded canonical and interpretations supplied by the TofR. The group itself under subsequent leadership maintained the esteem of the work by reinterpretation, a process that continues to this day.
Then again the use of Dan by 1 Macc is suggestive that the work had it's source in that camp. Maybe the original intents of a Maccabean author was holier than I imagine.