You did not provide a transcript. You provided a pop-science article and the full research paper it is based on. I will summarize the scientific claims from these documents. There are no timestamps.
Abstract:
This research proposes a new methodology for how the ancient Maya used the eclipse prediction table in the Dresden Codex. The authors, Justeson and Lowry, reject the long-held assumption that the 405-month table was used in a continuous loop, a method that accumulates significant errors over time. Instead, they argue the Maya reset the table at an earlier station—primarily at the 358th month—and occasionally at the 223rd month for long-term correction. As far as I can tell, the core claim is that this iterative, corrective procedure was sophisticated enough to accurately predict every solar eclipse observable in the Mayan territory for approximately 800 years (c. 350-1150 CE). The paper also suggests the 405-month period itself originated as a general lunar calendar, chosen because it commensurates with the 260-day divinatory cycle, and was only later adapted for eclipse prediction.
Unlocking the Dresden Codex: A New Model for Mayan Eclipse Prediction
The Problem with the Old Model: The Dresden Codex contains a table spanning 405 lunar months (11,960 days) used to predict eclipses. For a century, the assumption was that daykeepers used it on a continuous loop. This is incorrect; doing so causes predictions to drift and fail over time.
The Proposed Solution: An Iterative Reset: The researchers propose the Maya did not run the table to its end. Instead, they began a new table based on an earlier station in the current one.
The primary reset point was the 358th month, which is the station closest to a perfect Sun-Moon alignment (a node).
An occasional reset at the 223rd month was used to correct for the small, gradually accumulating errors from the 358-month resets.
A Highly Accurate System: This method of periodic correction is remarkably effective. The paper asserts it would have allowed the Maya to anticipate every single solar eclipse visible in their territory from roughly 350 CE to 1150 CE. The long-term error is less than 51 minutes over 134 years.
Origin of the 405-Month Table: The 405-month/11,960-day interval was likely not created for eclipse prediction. Its significance comes from its commensurability with the 260-day divinatory calendar (11,960 = 46 x 260). It was probably a general lunar cycle calendar that was later repurposed for the more complex task of tracking eclipses.
Evidence and Methodology: The model is derived from analyzing the table's structure and comparing it against modern data of observable eclipses in the Mayan region. The tripartite structure of the table and the consistent appearance of an 88-month interval between eclipse "families" support the proposed corrective model.
Key Takeaway: This suggests the Maya weren't just following a static formula but were engaged in a surprisingly modern, iterative process of empirical observation and model correction over centuries. The system was robust, self-correcting, and maintained predictive power for generations, which is far more impressive than a simple looping calendar.