From the 2011 issue of the JIABS.
In the arcticle, "The antarābhava dispute among Abhidharma traditions," the author presents the positions of the various schools and their textual foundations.
In conclusion, the author states:
The textual data investigated here regarding the antarābhava dispute
and the anāgāmin lists in different texts cannot reveal what
the Buddha’s “original” teaching was, which was the goal of ancient
commentators and historians. But they do provide very
valuable historical information that helps to clarify the history of
the texts, of the development of doctrines, and of Buddhist traditions.
The author also makes a case for the authority of the Mahasanghika record based on this analysis:
Also, by grouping the texts according to the lists they contain,
I have been able to show in section 5.1 that the text groupings reinforce
the Mahāsāṅghika chronicles’ description of relationships
among Buddhist schools. This indicates that the Mahāsāṅghika account
might be more credible than other accounts regarding these
relationships among the Sthavira Buddhist schools.
