No, that sounds fairly reasonable - not necessarily the 'hypothesised and then discovered, therefore credible' (that may be survivorship bias), but certainly th

No, that sounds fairly reasonable - not necessarily the 'hypothesised and then discovered, therefore credible' (that may be survivorship bias), but certainly the potential for that document to be 'Q'. Given 'Q source' (tautology, forgive me) was a conceptual construct to try to explain a part of the synoptic problem, there's no reason to believe it was necessarily a single document in the modern sense, or that earlier versions (that we don't have) may be subsets of things we actually subsequently got our hands on.