As well as there should be with novel interpretations like this. But there's plenty of time to develop alternate interpretations. Nobody should be treating this as anything more than an educated guess.

I think it should go without saying that humans of 20,000 years ago were as 'cognitively capable' as we are. Apart from people like Julian Jaynes, who surmised people weren't conscious until 2nd millennium BCE, who would dispute that, and on what basis?

So why wouldn't notes be of as much value to them as they are to us? It seems at least plausible. And so much more is plausible.

But we're limited to what evidence we can discover in these extremely rare environments, and there is not much to go on. We should expect to be wrong in our initial interpretations quite a lot. And seek out more discoveries.

My frustration with these ancestors is that they leave so much to our imagination. Couldn't they bother to include a little legend for clarity (yes, in English, please):

| | | == 3 lunar cycles
| | | | == 4 lunar cycles