Let's discuss RMP 66 in detail, step-by-step. You never start at the beginning, and list every step following Ahmes' outline.
Since Ahmes left out steps, you change the subject as Peet, Chace, Gillings and Robins-Shute often avoided critical topics. They too did not follow Ahmes' outline of the initial problem, and proofs, as matched data sets, thereby not showing their ignorance of Ahmes' actual arithmetic thinking.
Another general issue is that Ahmes often proved the correctness of answers, sometimes completely, sometimes not, by the well-known binary multiplication method.
To begin at the beginning in RMP 66 says to divide 10 hekat, written as 3200 ro by 365, or
3200/365 = 8 + 280/365
Where is this step in your work? No other intermediate step exactly follows Ahmes outline!
Ahmes then scaled the remainder 280/365 by 6/6 such that:
1680/2190 = 8 +(1460 + 219 + 1)/2190
= 8 + 2/3 + 1/10 + 2190
facts that Peet, Chace, Gillings, et al, did not fairly report.
So we agree on Ahmes' answer, but not his intermediate steps. What is new about that?
Your discussion of '64 hekat 3 "3 '10 '2190 ro is also confusing, baiting and switching, and thus not shedding needed light on Ahmes' intermediate steps, the subject of this discussion.
The '64 data says
3 + 280/365 = (6570 + 1680)/2190 = 8250/2190 =
1375/365 = 275/73
facts that Ahmes mentioned in terms of some '64 relationship. I'll work on the issue(s) today, and post an answer tomorrow, to directly discuss the topic.