If I may I would like to clarify where you currently stand in regards the historical dating of the Antiochus text. At the beginning of this thread you stated:
First some historical considerations. If my suspicions are correct about the dating of Antiochus’ lost introductory writing are correct, he may be one of the first to report them. The first thing of interest is that they are not associated with the elements in that text, but rather with “winds”, which in turn are correlated with the four cardinal directions; such an association persists up to the time of Ptolemy. To the best of my knowledge, Valens is the first surviving source that associates them with the elements, although he does not do this as if he were innovating.
The second thing of note in that text is that the author does not give the trigons planetary rulerships at all. We do find the rulership scheme that became common in medieval astrology in Dorotheus and Valens.
Would i be correct in concluding from this that you now think Antiochus may have pre-dated Dorotheus? Traditionally Dorotheus is located as living in the 1st centurty CE. Antiochus is generally believed to have lived sometime during the late 2nd century CE. David Pingree concluded he lived late in the 2nd century CE. You reported a similar view on your original translation of Antiochus. I take it that a close study of the text has convinced you that this earlier assumption was wrong? There have certainly been historians who have concluded Antiochus lived in the 1st century CE. For example Franz Cumont. Can I take it you are now sympathetic to that perspective?