In my opinion, you fail to consider that the Latinised population of the Balkans was spread all over the territory from North of Greece to the Carpathians. Certainly, that region wasn't densely populated, but they were around there. Then they got assimilated by the Slavs gradually in the South and likewise managed to assimilate the Slavs North of the Danube.
Naturally, you would expect some of those from the South to be attracted by the notion of a Vlach state and migrate into the territory. Heck, it even happens to this day. Ever heard of Gheorghe Hagi and Simona Halep? Those guys descend from recent Aromanian migrants in Romania.
And obviously, just to top it all off, I think I'm the only one who actually presented real archaeological data. I'm still waiting to be illuminated on the so-called colossal migration of Vlachs in the medieval period who somehow managed to take over all of these aforementioned cultures on the territories of Wallachia and Moldavia and subjugate them without much effort (certainly such a sudden movement of people would have made for some interesting writings in the chronicles of our neighbours, wouldn't they?). If you are eager on autosomal data from Romania, as I am too, consider that we don't have anything later than the Chalcolithic. And those Scythians from Moldova certainly look like they took a fair share of local Farmer components, as opposed to those further East. What did you expect to demonstrate with this lack of data then? I wouldn't jump the gun so early.
https://www.google.com/maps/d/u/0/vi...9382506982&z=6
So, let's all be civilised. The archaeological data is in favour of the continuation, while the autosomal aspect from ancients was simply not studied past the Chalcolithic yet. Modern Romanians are an almost 50/50 split between Balkan and Eastern European paternal markers and around 60/40 autosomally, when modelled as a combination of Balkans Iron Age and Baltic Iron Age.