The chronology of the suttāni is a tricky business, especially when one is dealing with more than one recension of Buddhavacana. As I recall, in this thread, it led to an interesting discussion around dating suttāni, as the āgama and nikāya accounts give different details as to the circumstances of the Fire Sermon.
IMO it makes the most sense to just use the Pāli tradition as-is, for dating suttāni etc, even if it is not as “provably exact” as we moderns would like our history to be. Why? Because we lack a major school of Buddhism that has flourished solely on the teachings in the āgama-recensions. There are some insights about them to be gleaned from Mahāyāna writers, but on a whole, in their "native"Mahāyāna setting, they are generally under-read, and when they are, they are “read through the lens” of later Mahāyāna sūtrāṇi. Given this, I think it is best to stick with the Pāli tradition, since more attention and focus has been spent on the Pāli suttāni, not to denigrate the work of the Chinese āgama translators and preservers.
If fact, I think it is in those small details, like where this happened, when that happened, who did this, who spoke that, that account for most of the difference between Buddhavacana recension, moreso than the Dharma content of those diverse recensions.