Pañcastavī=an archaic traipura text?

I got reminded of the Pañcastavī on reading about a fragment of it,the laghustavī transmitted in Kerala as the Bālāviṁśati(literally:Twenty verses on the goddess Bālā) in an article by Karasinski and GSK Sharman. and that led me to read up on the Pañcastavī and try to note various points in it that point to a possible historical marker/concrete historical anchoring

1. A possible reference to a certain Vatsarāja in its 12th verse of the Laghustavi. This could be a very likely reference to the same Vatsarāja who composed the Kāmasiddhistuti in the context of an archaic form of worship of Śrīvidyā that does not survive today.
2. The 11th verse of the Laghustavi also has a description of Bālā that is close to Tripurābhairavī(also considering the closeness in nyāsas compared to Bālā and Tripurābhairavī and the construction of (Tripurā)bhairavī from Bālā by adding the syllables representing sūrya,soma and agni in each bīja of the Bālā tryakṣarī=this shift from kāma to adding the ̍Śiva’ component parallels the development seen in Lalitā and the Nityā cult as well). This also implies that at one point in Her cult,Bālā was seen as bhairavī Herself.
3. Imagery from older Daurga cults/Caṇḍikā cult being used in the worship of Bālā,affirming Her royal position and as the kuladevī of kings in the 13th verse
4. Reference to the offerings of milk,ghee,honey and wine (in conjunction with the offerings of brahmins,kṣatriyas,vaiśyas and śudras respectively?)
5. The author does not seem to know the Lalitopākhyāna or any detail of the war against Bhaṇḍāsura and Bālā is a supreme independent Goddess in Her own right,most frequently equated with the ‘battle-queen’ Caṇḍikā
6. Attraction of women is mentioned without any negative remark about it
7. Mention of Tripurā as being worshipped by Gaṇeśa and Vaṭuka in the Carcāstava section as mentioned in the Kāmasiddhistuti(as opposed to later South Indian lineages that tend to elide the worship of Vaṭuka in practice and/or use replacements)
8. The mention of the name Tārā to be uttered when one is under danger from water brings to my mind the usage of the ‘oṃ tāre tuttāre ture…’ mantra in the Paraśurāmakalpasutras as the jalāpat-śamanī vidya. In both the cases the deity is Ārya Tārā.
9. A certain form of the Goddess Parā is being alluded to in the fourth stava(ambāstava) section where She is bearing a crystal mālā,a book,cinmudrā and a cupt(yaḥ sphāṭikākṣaguṇapustakakuṇḍikāḍhyāṃ vyākhyasamudyatakarāṃ śaradinduśubhrāṃ…)? (She is also alluded in the beginning of the hymn in its Laghustavī section in a slightly different form).
10. In the 25th verse of the Ambāstava,the reference to Her being His body reminds one of a certain conceptualization of Abhinavagupta.
11. Mention of the ṣaḍadhvas in the 30th verse=this is one concept poorly understood outside the śaivāgamic world. They arethe varṇa,pada,mantra,kalā,tattva and the bhuvanadhvan-s. The six adhvans are three vācya(referent)-vācaka(word) pairs. kalā,tattva and bhuvanadhvans are the vācya and pada,mantra and varṇādhvans are the vācakas. This and other referents indicate that the tattvacintana of the Goddess was done in the tradition of nondual flavour of śaivāgama rather than advaita vedānta.
12. The 5th sakalajananīstava section also acknowledges that no philosophy can truly fully express Her.
13. The 22nd verse of the sakalajananīstava expresses that it was through Her that Śiva severed the head of Brahmā and used it as a skullcup,impaled Viṣṇu(later traditions note it as Viśvaksena) and become Nīlakaṇṭha by bearing the halāhala poison in His neck. I wonder if the reference to the first and second ākhyānas is not coincidental and the author is establishing Her as the female version of Bhairava,i.e.Bhairavī?
14. In the very last verse of the sakalajananīstava She is identified with the classical śaiva aṣṭamūrtayaḥ.(Earth,Water,Fire,Air,Vyoma,Surya,Soma and the Yajamana).
15. Further points:Paramadvaya influence in the stava could serve as anchoring the terminus ante quem in addition to the post quem as it would have been older than kevalādvaita but śrīvidyā at one point did not have this either. The mūlavāmakeśvarīmata itself is an example of this process. It has purvāmnāya elements but not the high philosophy of Abhinavagupta,Utpaladeva etc…that would need the Yoginīhṛdaya and commentaries. [Note:Abhinavagupta and Kṣemarāja were very likely aware of the Nityā-Dakṣināmnāya/the earliest beginnings of ̎proto-Śrīvidya(beyond Bālā and Her system)?]