In a recent edition of Apeiron, Jay Kennedy published 'Plato's Forms, Pythagorean Mathematics and Stichometry'.
A further problem in assessing Kennedy's stichometry is that it is not entirely clear which thesis or theses are being advanced.
The claim that stichometry confirms that our versions of Plato's texts are in good order, when it needs to assume that they are in good order to begin with, also looks distinctly circular.
Kennedy's application of stichometry to the pseudo-Platonic works, although interesting, does not prove a great deal.
As the Critias is unfinished, and we have no trace of the Hermocrates, the claim might then be that without being able to determine the length of the work, we cannot do the stichometry. However, as everyone since antiquity has taken the Timaeus as a whole, and there are abundant indications in its text that it should be taken as a whole, this would be a counsel of despair.
Surely Proclus, who wrote a very detailed commentary on the Timaeus and dealt with the musical aspects in great detail, would have something to say about stichometry and musical structure.
On the evidence presented in Kennedy's first paper, though, I am unconvinced that there is any significant result that comes from applying stichometry to Plato.
The lists of apocrypha from ancient sources, which James inserted in the body of his book (the Decretum Gelasianum, the seventh-century List of the Sixty Books, and the
Stichometry of Nicephorus), have been transposed to follow the Bibliography and modernized (pp.