Fiema and Schmid (2014:429–430) argue that Structure 1 in the NEPP area was probably “destroyed by the 363 earthquake, but [was] later restored although in much altered form and appearance.” They suggest that final destruction and abandonment probably occurred “afterwards, perhaps sometime in the early 5th century,” and propose that this terminal phase may be attributable to the Monaxius and Plinta Quake of 419 CE. Fiema and Schmid (2014:431) further posit that "Structure 1 appears no longer occupied by the end of the 5th century or even earlier".

This interpretation apparently relies in part on ceramic parallels from ez-Zantur I, specifically Bauphase Spatromisch II. However, Jones (2021) challenges this chronological framework, arguing that the ez-Zantur I Spatromisch II ceramic assemblage should date not to the period between 363 and 419 CE, but to at least a century later. If correct, this revision would undermine the proposed archaeoseismic evidence for a 419 CE earthquake at ez-Zantur and related contexts in Petra, including a structure outside the Urn Tomb and Structure I of the NEPP area.

Jones further notes that Structure 1 of the NEPP has not been excavated, and that its attribution to the 418/419 earthquake rests solely on surface finds and assumed correlations with ez-Zantur I. In the absence of excavation data, the date and character of the building’s destruction remain uncertain, leaving ez-Zantur I as the primary evidentiary basis for claims of seismic damage associated with the 418/419 event at Petra.

On this basis, Jones (2021) proposes that the causative earthquake for these destruction horizons is more plausibly the late 6th-century CE Inscription at Areopolis Quake, rather than the Monaxius and Plinta Quake of 419 CE.