Maybe not. I went back to have another look at the abstract(?) of the study I posted in #225. Ran across this little jewel I recall reading but dismissed(?) because I had found what I was looking for in the previous sentence. From that abstract:
It follows that the present elevation of the substage 5a shoreline cannot be explained by uplift or subsidence, and that relative sea-level positions for substage 5a along the South Carolina coast were approximately the same as MIS 5e or the present day.
You'll need to reread #225 to get the whole picture but essentially what this 2005 study concluded, amongst other things, is the 5a layer(ca. 82 ka.) and the 5e(ca. 130-116 ka.), were virtually the same. I don't quite know what to make of that given the "blue line" graph indicating otherwise, except that the blue line graph is possibly/likely wrong? IOW, your arguments are holding up, at least under this layman's scrutiny. Bravo........so far.
"given the blue line graph indicating otherwise"
Actually it doesn't appear to me that the blue line graph does indicate otherwise. At 82ka the sea level was about -45m, from 130-116ya sea level was rising rapidly and passed through the -45m level, so depending on the precise date of the deposition of the 5e, or the area analyzed, they both could have been at the -45m level. If you have the graphic skills, perhaps you could stretch out the blue line graph on the horizontal to get a more precise fix on when the 130-116ya line crossed the same level as the -82ka line.