Table 1. Model 1 (Fig 9) results.

A. Results (bold = 68.3% hpd, and non-bold = 95.4% hpd) for the date of the Thera Eruption Boundary from 5 runs of Model 1 (Fig 9) with the Difference query with LnN(ln(3),ln(2)) constraint^†, and from 5 runs of an alternative version using a Difference query with U(0,15) constraint, each without, and then with, the likely maximum southern Aegean GSRO of 4±2 ¹⁴C years. B. The same but for the Akrotiri stages (ii)/(iii) Boundary. OxCal A_model/A_overall (A_m/A_o) values are also listed for each model. Note rounding errors sometimes see the total hpd reported vary by up to 0.1%. The results show how all runs of such models are unique and results determined can vary very slightly—especially in this case in the less well-defined margins of the 95.4% probability region on the recent side, where the calibration curve plateau lacks clear discrimination (exacerbated slightly further again when the GRSO with additional error term is applied). Run 3 (*) with equal highest A_m value (121.2) is illustrated in Fig 9.

Run	Am/Ao	LnN(ln(3),ln(2)) Dates BCE	Am/Ao	LnN(ln(3),ln(2)) with Delta_R (4,2) Dates BCE	Am/Ao	U(0,15) Dates BCE	Am/Ao	U(0,15) with Delta_R (4,2) Dates BCE
A.	Thera Eruption (Stage v) Boundary
1	121/ 105	1606–1589	106/ 89	1606–1583	121/ 105	1604–1588	105/ 89	1604–1583
		1609–1560		1609–1551		1609–1559		1608–1553
2	121 /106	1606–1589	106/ 88	1606–1580	121/ 105	1604–1587	104/ 89	1604–1582
		1609–1560		1608–1548		1609–1560		1608–1550
3	121*/ 105	1606–1589	105/ 89	1606–1583	120/ 105	1604–1587	105/ 88	1604–1582
		1609–1560		1609–1551		1609–1560		1608–1549
4	121/ 105	1606–1589	106/ 88	1606–1583	120/ 105	1605–1587	105/ 89	1604–1582
		1609–1561		1609–1551		1609–1559		1608–1549
5	121/ 106	1606–1588	105/88	1606–1582	119/ 105	1605–1587	105/ 89	1604–1583
		1609–1558		1609–1550		1609–1559		1608–1551
Av. 68.3%		1606–1589		1606–1582		1604–1587		1604–1582
Av. 95.4%		1609–1560		1609–1550		1609–1559		1608–1550
B.	Stages (ii)/(iii) Boundary
1	121/ 105	1610–1592	106/ 89	1610–1587	121/ 105	1612–1594	105/ 89	1611–1591
		1614–1562		1613–1555		1617–1565		1616–1560
2	121 /106	1610–1592	106/ 88	1610–1588	121/ 105	1612–1594	104/ 89	1611–1589
		1614–1563		1613–1557		1617–1567		1616–1557
3	121/ 105	1610–1592	105/ 89	1609–1584	120/ 105	1612–1594	105/ 88	1612–1589
		1614–1562		1612–1550		1617–1566		1616–1557
4	121/ 105	1610–1592	106/ 88	1610–1586	120/ 105	1612–1594	105/ 89	1612–1589
		1614–1563		1613–1555		1617–1656		1616–1557
5	121/ 106	1610–1591	105/88	1610–1586	119/ 105	1612–1594	105/ 89	1611–1590
		1614–1562		1613–1552		1617–1565		1616–1558

^†Note: readers might ask how determinative is the LnN(ln(3),ln(2)) constraint, and wonder whether a more compressed and shorter period constraint, favoring the shorter assessments of the time interval between stages (ii)/(iii) and stage (v), variously assessed by experts as weeks/months/season(s) up to a period of several years (see Materials and methods), might make a substantive difference. To test and clarify, we may consider, e.g., the same Model 1 version shown in Fig 9 and reported in Table 1 re-run instead with a LnN(ln(0.75),ln(3)) constraint, which assumes a mode value around 2.5 months, a 68.3% hpd range from 0.04 to 1.29 years and a 95.4% range from 0.01 to 4.81 years: see S2A Fig. There is very little difference, the Thera Eruption (stage v) Boundary is 1607–1589 BCE (68.3% hpd) and 1610–1559 BCE (95.4% hpd) (to 1557 BCE in some runs), compared with the average value of 1606–1589 BCE (68.3% hpd) and 1609–1560 BCE (95.4% hpd) reported in Table 1.