Davidovits' three-stage Andean chemistry — plant acids disaggregating limestone or caliche into a paste, mixing with crushed rock, and guano as an ammonium-rich hardener — produces durable artificial stone under pre-industrially accessible conditions.

GEO-E064 reports a laboratory replication of the acid-medium binder, but with modern chemicals and no data. It also states that plant acids cannot disaggregate andesite, and its second reader disputes the supporting direction. GEO-E059 records that the authors cannot tell guano residue from binder. No record shows the three-stage chemistry working with the proposed ancient inputs, so the verdict is unresolved rather than weakly supported.

The three-stage chemistry is asserted, not shown: the claimed laboratory replication used modern chemicals with no published recipe, data, or product characterization, the authors concede plant acids cannot disaggregate andesite, and they themselves cannot say whether the guano signature is unreacted residue or binder. The strongest opposing consideration is that the record most cited for this mechanism is the authors' own admission of its gaps.

GEO-E064 reports only an asserted laboratory replication with modern chemicals, without a recipe, measurements, durability tests, or use of the proposed ancient plant and guano inputs. It also states that the acids do not disaggregate andesite, narrowing the process to producing a binder for unconsolidated aggregate. The strongest supporting consideration is the authors' assertion that the acidic-medium mechanism was successfully replicated, but the evidence record supplies too little experimental detail to establish durable artificial stone under pre-industrial conditions.

Davidovits describes the three-stage plant-acid + crushed rock + guano pathway and asserts laboratory replication with modern chemicals (GEO-E064). No recipe, product data, or ancient-input trial is supplied; acids are stated not to disaggregate andesite itself. Strongest opposing consideration is that the replication remains an unpublished assertion with modern reagents only.

The only records are the proponents' own. They state that acids disaggregate limestone but not andesite, and that earlier attempts softened limestone without re-hardening it. They also state that the acid-medium guano method was "successfully replicated in our laboratory with modern chemicals", but give no recipe, data or product characterisation (GEO-E064), and they cannot say whether the monument organic matter is binder or unreacted guano (GEO-E059). No hardness, durability or ancient-input test appears in the ledger, and the cited 1982 work is not entered as evidence. I read GEO-E064 as qualifying rather than supporting, agreeing with the recorded dissent: its reported success used modern reagents, and its stated failure concerns exactly the re-hardening step. Strongest consideration against leaving it open: acid–base and ammonium/phosphate cementation are plausible on general background and the recipe is cheap to test, but plausibility is not a demonstration of durable stone from pre-industrial inputs.

GEO-E064 asserts a laboratory replication with modern chemicals but gives no recipe or data, and states that plant acids cannot disaggregate andesite. A second reader disputes its 'supports' direction. GEO-E059 records that the authors cannot tell unreacted guano from binder. No record shows the proposed ancient inputs producing durable stone.