Thanks everyone for their suggestions.
Regarding MN 117 and SN 34, my initial thought is that, while they may indeed have late features, the bulk of the content is pretty normal. Maybe they, or part of them, should be included, but they’re not at the top of my list.
I just checked, and I’m afraid that a substantial portion of that article is based on SA 604, which is not the Samyuktagama at all. It is, in fact, a portion of the Ashokavadana, a later biography of King Ashoka, which was mistakenly inserted in the Chinese text, probably through a filing error during the Chinese transmission. If it makes you feel better, Etienne Lamotte, one of the true greats of Buddhist studies, made the same mistake. So anyway, it is certainly inauthentic.
Meanwhile, @vimala, SA 604 has a display bug in the division table. The title appears as SA 604（六〇四） SA 604（六〇四）, where the Chinese is just the number. Now, I think this is extracted from the text, and I have changed the title there, so hopefully this should be okay. However, we should also add a "Note’ to this entry, which can say
SA 604 is a portion of the Aśokavadāna. It appears to have been inserted in SA by a clerical error during the transmission in China.
A similar situation occurs with SA 640 and SA 641. We should add a similar note, changing the sutta number of course.
@brahmali, it should be a formality, but to confirm: add SA 604, SA 640, SA 641.