Separate what is established, what is inferred, and what still needs historical evidence.

Established legal transformation is different from your analytical inference and then based on this inference you go for further economic hypothesis that even is a strong proposition, but you should support the actual claim with evidence if you want to take it further.

If your evidence establishes, then you absolutely can make that argument. My point is not that the argument is impossible. It is that the logical possibility of the sequence is not itself historical evidence that the sequence occurred at the scale you are claiming.

That distinction—between economic logic and historical demonstration—is especially important for the kind of evidence-based argument you are building