I compared the result for Bulgarians from the paper (13 individuals) with the result from one sample you provided: Bulgarian_-_BulgarianD6:
The paper:
Side 1 (Belorussian-like): 46,0%
Side 2 (Cypriot-like): 64,0%
Your sample:
Slavic Bohemia: 47.5%
Balkans IA: 52.5%
The values are quite similar. Now I am comparing the Romanian results (Romanian_-_G428):
The paper:
Side 1 (Lithuanian-like): 43,0%
Side 2 (EastSicilian-like): 57,0%
Your sample:
Slavic Bohemia: 51.67%
Balkans IA: 48.33%
You are assuming that Cypriots and East Sicilians can work as proxies for Balkans IA since they are both from the South. Same goes for Lithuanians and Slavic Bohemia.
You couldn't be farther from the truth in both cases.
[TABLE="class: json-to-table, width: 1199"]
[TR]
[TH="class: jsl, bgcolor: #F3F3F3"][/TH]
[TH="bgcolor: #F3F3F3"]Model[/TH]
[TH="bgcolor: #F3F3F3"]Sample[/TH]
[TH="bgcolor: #F3F3F3"]Sample Age BCE[/TH]
[TH="bgcolor: #F3F3F3"]Fit[/TH]
[TH="bgcolor: #F3F3F3"]Anatolia IA[/TH]
[TH="bgcolor: #F3F3F3"]Balkans IA[/TH]
[TH="bgcolor: #F3F3F3"]Baltic IA[/TH]
[TH="bgcolor: #F3F3F3"]Hasanlu IA[/TH]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD="class: jsl"]1[/TD]
[TD]Anatolia_IA +Balkans_IA +Baltic_IA +Hasanlu_IA[/TD]
[TD]Cypriot_-_CYP5[/TD]
[TD][/TD]
[TD]3.8572[/TD]
[TD]0[/TD]
[TD]51.67[/TD]
[TD]0[/TD]
[TD]48.33[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD="class: jsl"]2[/TD]
[TD]Anatolia_IA +Balkans_IA +Baltic_IA +Hasanlu_IA[/TD]
[TD]Sicilian_East_-_EastSicilian8H[/TD]
[TD][/TD]
[TD]3.2813[/TD]
[TD]24.17[/TD]
[TD]53.33[/TD]
[TD]1.67[/TD]
[TD]20.83[/TD]
[/TR]
[/TABLE]
[TABLE="class: json-to-table, width: 1199"]
[TR]
[TH="class: jsl, bgcolor: #F3F3F3"][/TH]
[TH="bgcolor: #F3F3F3"]Model[/TH]
[TH="bgcolor: #F3F3F3"]Sample[/TH]
[TH="bgcolor: #F3F3F3"]Sample Age BCE[/TH]
[TH="bgcolor: #F3F3F3"]Fit[/TH]
[TH="bgcolor: #F3F3F3"]Anatolia IA[/TH]
[TH="bgcolor: #F3F3F3"]Balkans IA[/TH]
[TH="bgcolor: #F3F3F3"]Hasanlu IA[/TH]
[TH="bgcolor: #F3F3F3"]Slavic Bohemia[/TH]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD="class: jsl"]1[/TD]
[TD]Anatolia_IA +Balkans_IA +Hasanlu_IA +Slavic_Bohemia[/TD]
[TD]Cypriot_-_CYP5[/TD]
[TD][/TD]
[TD]3.8572[/TD]
[TD]0[/TD]
[TD]51.67[/TD]
[TD]48.33[/TD]
[TD]0[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD="class: jsl"]2[/TD]
[TD]Anatolia_IA +Balkans_IA +Hasanlu_IA +Slavic_Bohemia[/TD]
[TD]Sicilian_East_-_EastSicilian8H[/TD]
[TD][/TD]
[TD]3.3181[/TD]
[TD]23.33[/TD]
[TD]51.67[/TD]
[TD]22.5[/TD]
[TD]2.5[/TD]
[/TR]
[/TABLE]
[TABLE="class: json-to-table, width: 1199"]
[TR]
[TH="class: jsl, bgcolor: #F3F3F3"][/TH]
[TH="bgcolor: #F3F3F3"]Model[/TH]
[TH="bgcolor: #F3F3F3"]Sample[/TH]
[TH="bgcolor: #F3F3F3"]Sample Age BCE[/TH]
[TH="bgcolor: #F3F3F3"]Fit[/TH]
[TH="bgcolor: #F3F3F3"]Balkans IA[/TH]
[TH="bgcolor: #F3F3F3"]Baltic BA[/TH]
[TH="bgcolor: #F3F3F3"]Hungary IA[/TH]
[TH="bgcolor: #F3F3F3"]Nordic IA[/TH]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD="class: jsl"]1[/TD]
[TD]Balkans_IA +Baltic_BA +Hungary_IA +Nordic_IA[/TD]
[TD]Lithuanian_-_LithuanianD1[/TD]
[TD][/TD]
[TD]2.5614[/TD]
[TD]12.5[/TD]
[TD]57.5[/TD]
[TD]0[/TD]
[TD]30[/TD]
[/TR]
[/TABLE]
[TABLE="class: json-to-table, width: 1199"]
[TR]
[TH="class: jsl, bgcolor: #F3F3F3"][/TH]
[TH="bgcolor: #F3F3F3"]Model[/TH]
[TH="bgcolor: #F3F3F3"]Sample[/TH]
[TH="bgcolor: #F3F3F3"]Sample Age BCE[/TH]
[TH="bgcolor: #F3F3F3"]Fit[/TH]
[TH="bgcolor: #F3F3F3"]Balkans IA[/TH]
[TH="bgcolor: #F3F3F3"]Baltic BA[/TH]
[TH="bgcolor: #F3F3F3"]Nordic IA[/TH]
[TH="bgcolor: #F3F3F3"]Slavic Bohemia[/TH]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD="class: jsl"]1[/TD]
[TD]Balkans_IA +Baltic_BA +Nordic_IA +Slavic_Bohemia[/TD]
[TD]Lithuanian_-_LithuanianD1[/TD]
[TD][/TD]
[TD]2.5611[/TD]
[TD]11.67[/TD]
[TD]55.83[/TD]
[TD]30[/TD]
[TD]2.5[/TD]
[/TR]
[/TABLE]
Let's not argue for the sake of measuring our genitals.
That paper and model is old. Even in 2014, Davidski and Dodecad had better models with the latest references at that time than there.