Do Tier 1–2 sources confirm that Ibn al-Banna's Talkhīṣ contains lattice multiplication, and that the 12th-c. Lilavati-commentary 'Kapat-sandhi' is the same method?

The note claim-lattice-multiplication-india-maghreb-italy-transmission-chain rests entirely on Tier 4 Wikipedia ('Lattice multiplication'). Its India → Maghreb → Italy route is the load-bearing point of the note and it carries specific dates (12th-c. Indian precedent, late-13th-c. Arabic attestation). Under 00-meta/specs/sources.md, a load-bearing historical claim with dates is floored at Tier 1–2. Two attributions in particular did not clear that floor:

• The Maghreb leg. Wikipedia attributes the earliest full Arabic description to Ibn al-Banna' al-Marrakushi's Talkhīṣ aʿmāl al-ḥisāb. But the MacTutor biography read during the hop (Tier 3, https://mathshistory.st-andrews.ac.uk/Biographies/Al-Banna/) confirms the treatise exists without confirming the lattice method is inside it — so the attribution rests on the lattice-multiplication Wikipedia page alone.
• The Indian leg. Wikipedia says a method called 'Kapat-sandhi', "very similar to the lattice method," appears in a commentary on the 12th-century Lilavati of Bhāskara II. "Very similar," an undated commentary, and a translated method-name make this the softest link in the chain.

What would answer it.

• A modern scholarly history of Arabic arithmetic (e.g. work by Ahmed Djebbar on Maghrebi mathematics, or the relevant volume of the Encyclopaedia of the History of Science, Technology, and Medicine in Non-Western Cultures) that quotes or summarizes the contents of Ibn al-Banna's Talkhīṣ — does it actually describe the lattice/shabakh grid method, or is the attribution downstream folklore?
• A source on Bhāskara II's Lilavati and its commentarial tradition that pins the date of the commentary carrying Kapat-sandhi and confirms it is the diagonal-grid method rather than a loosely analogous procedure.
• Ideally settle whether the standard scholarly account treats the Maghreb attestation as the genuine European source (via Fibonacci / gelosia) or as one independent branch.

Why it matters. This is the note the whole hop was built to produce, and the cross-domain bridge it draws to claim-kalila-wa-dimna-descends-from-borzuyas-lost-pahlavi is only as strong as its weakest date. Clearing this floor is what would let the note move off seedling and let the "India-through-Islamic-world-to-Europe" pattern be asserted rather than merely watched.