Hi Tory
Firstly, thank you for the copies of Millard’s copies of A3 and KAV 21-24. Secondly, great illustrations you have placed on the forum superimposing your arrangement of limus onto copies of these documents.
I've already pointed out enough times now that both Ungnad and Schroeder believed Aššur-gimili-tirri was the last limmu in col. IX of KAV 21-24. It should be obvious to you by now that Ungnad's and Schroeder's view depends entirely on Aššur-gimili-tirri appearing on eponym-list A3 somewhere between Silim-Aššur (preserved on KAV 21-24 but not preserved on A3) and Ša-Nabu-šu (not preserved on KAV 21-24 but preserved on A3 col. V line 2').
Maybe you could point to the exact reference you are using because I can not find it. On the contrary, in my internet search, I find the complete opposite.
The first construction I find is in George Smith’s 1785 book, “The Assyrian Eponym Canon”, at
http://archive.org/stream/assyrianeponymca00smitiala#page/n3/mode/2up
with relevant pages being 40-41 and 69-71. His arrangement was
659 Silim-Assur 658 ? 657 ? 656 Sa-nabu-su and for him Assur-gimil-turri was to be placed after 644
In 1902 the Rev. C.H.W. Johns in “The Chronology of Ašurbânipal’s Reign. I.”, PSBA 24 (1903) 235-241 published the first in a series of papers on the chronology arrangement of the early to mid limus of Aššur-bani-apli. His summary table is here
http://archive.org/stream/proceedings24soci#page/241/mode/1up
Subsequent papers in 1903-1907 explained his reasons for revising Smith’s assignments. His arrangement forms the basis of the modern conventional scheme and is
659 Silim-Ašur 658 Ša-Nabű-šű with Aššur-gimillu-tere being placed sometime after 644.
When I turn to Schroeder’s 1920 explanation of Canon A3, here at the top of page VIII
http://archive.org/stream/keilschrifttexte00schr#page/n13/mode/1up
we see that he considered Aššur-gimillu-tere (which name he reads as “Ášur-bęl-la-mur?”) to be a post canonical and therefore several years after 659.
Finally Ungnad. In his 1938 article “Eponymen” in RlA, on pages 428 and 429 his summary has the following arrangement
659 Silim-Aššur 658 Ša-Nabű-šű with Aššur-gimilli-terra sometime after 648
So I say again, for over 100 years, no one but yourself has placed Aššur-gimillu-tere (and others) between Silim-Aššur at 659 and Ša-Nabu-šu at 658. All place him (and the others) in the post canonical period. Clearly therefore no one considers him to be the last limu of column IX of KAV 21-24.
Regards Joe