The main problem is this:
The article makes statements implying that with the Gandhari manuscripts, we no longer have any grounds for suggesting that any given tradition is more original or authentic than any other. This is incorrect, because she overstates the range for which this applies. It is not any tradition. Rather, it is various traditions that represent the Agama / Nikaya texts. The evidence produced in this article does not go beyond that, into Mahayana texts, or tantra, or whatever. Prof Harrison says as much on pg. 9. As such, some of his comments, which are actually about Mahayana texts, are taken out of context in this article, and applied elsewhere.
I read that article pretty much as soon as it came out, as Prof Paul Harrison who was quoted in it, handed me a copy as soon as it was published. I was studying Sanskrit with him at that time.
But, as far as scholarship for the masses goes, it is a nice essay, and most people can learn a lot from it.
My recently moved Blog, containing some of my writings on the Buddha Dhamma, as well as a number of translations from classical Buddhist texts and modern authors, liturgy, etc.: .