MVP is wrong, Sanaa Palimpsest go back to the same single written source. Difference were that the exemplar from which Sanaa Palimpsest was copied was probably not a codex but folios, was probably in very poor condition, therefore words was replaced by synonyms with the help of the context, etc. There was no sura order because there is no order specified in earliest ms, no title, etc.
As MVP is not an historian but a linguist he thinks only inside this frame. Thus works human brain (yawn...).
MVP has his reasons for believing that. He will soon publish a paper showing that these manuscripts all go back to a single archetype. That the palimpsest diverges from the standard vulgata
is well-known and several explanations have been offered to account for that fact. I am personally a fan of this theory of yours but you must take into account what Sidky, Cellard, and MVP have written on the topic. My understanding (not saying I believe this) is that the palimpsest was not produced in a study circle (pace Hilali) to not be a proper codext, given the materials it was written on.
Anyway, can you add some further details to your explanation? I might want to use it an essay.