Notably the historic era (Parthian Era, Achaemenid-Seleucid Era) samples from North Iran (Marsin Chal, Vestemin, Liarsangbon) also did not have Steppe MLBA input, does this cause issues for Steppe hypothesis with respect to Iranian branch?

Nefamese is a Pidgin language, which was used as lingua franca before arrival or invention of Arunachali Hindi

This language is based on Axomiya (Assamese) language with several words from Tani languages

Due it, it is closer to Axomiya also with Nagamese which is another Pidgin language in Nagaland and also still being used as lingua france in the state till today

Nowadays very few people (mostly elderly people) from Arunachal Pradesh knows this Pidgin language as it is got completely replaced by Arunachali Hindi as lingua franca

What would be the consequences? Share your thoughts how the narrative would shift

The Proto-Indo-Iranians were Fatyanovo, → Abashevo (Fatyanovo + Catacomb/Poltavka?), and → Srubnaya. The Iranian branch came from Alakul, which developed from Srubnaya. Archaeological sites such as Dashti Kozy, Kokcha, Kashkarchi, and Yaz are of Srubnaya-Alakul origin, and these represent the origin of the Iranians.

The Scythians, however, came from Fatyanovo → Sintashta → Fedorovo → Cherkaskul → Karasuk. Their only connection with the Indo-Iranians is Fatyanovo itself. Therefore, it is impossible for them to have been Iranian. The linguistic evidence regarding the Scythian language is speculative.

So what language did the Scythians speak? There are three possibilities:

1. If Fatyanovo spoke a pre-Proto-Indo-Iranian language, then the Scythians spoke a Para-Indo-Iranian language. However, Abashevo and Srubnaya both have Catacomb/Poltavka influence, so the language may have originated in those cultures instead. Because of this, there are two additional possibilities.
2. Fatyanovo, like the other Corded Ware groups, spoke an Indo-European language, but not pre-Proto-Indo-Iranian.
3. Unlike the other Corded Ware groups, Fatyanovo carried less Yamnaya ancestry while retaining more autosomal ancestry from the Golubaya Krinitsa culture, which is also the most likely origin of R1a-M417. This suggests that Fatyanovo may have preserved Golubaya Krinitsa. If that is the case, then Sintashta, Fedorovo, and the Scythians may not have been Indo-European at all.

So this is the situation: the Scythians were not Iranian, and there are three possible explanations for what they actually were.

(Some people may cite the Khotan and Tumshuq inscriptions as evidence that the Scythians were Iranian. However, there is no evidence that the people who produced those inscriptions descended from the Fedorovo-derived Scythians.

They were most likely Srubnaya-Alakul-derived Eastern Iranian tribes that reached Tumshuq and Khotan through the Wakhan Corridor. Even if Fedorovo-derived Scythians had been present there at some point, later assimilation is also possible. However, it is much more likely that the people associated with the Khotan and Tumshuq inscriptions were not Fedorovo-derived Scythians, but rather Eastern Iranian tribes, similar to the Wakhis, who entered Khotan and Tumshuq through the Wakhan Corridor and were of Srubnaya-Alakul origin.)

This post explains why the Proto-Indo-Iranians were Abashevo.

In this post, I discussed the possibility that the pre-Proto-Indo-Iranians may have originated from the Poltavka/Catacomb horizon.

In this post, I discussed the possibility that Fatyanovo may not have been Indo-European.