I have read a lot of Faulkner but as much as I liked his stories I was sometimes tempted to throw the book in the trash because it was so hard to figure out what he was trying to say. There is much to admire about Faulkner but his sentence structure is not something to praise unless you admire obscurity.
I try to constantly remember that the fact that I know what it is that I am attempting to convey is no guarantee whatsoever that a reader will know what it is that I am attempting to convey.
There is more wrong with your sentence than numerical inconsistency and that is the last I intend to say on the matter.
I subscribe, I’m no longer sure why, to an e-mail newsletter of a music industry insider, who is what some would call a “graphomaniac”, as on some days he sends out two or three e-mails a day, “analyzing”, if you will, some aspects of some happenings in the music industry. I signed up a couple of years ago after he introduced me to a great undiscovered musical act. I guess, I keep my membership, which is free, by the way, graphomaniacs don’t need to charge, only because every once in a while he composes an e-mail titled “Mailbag” in which he quotes e-mails to himself from various interesting characters in the industry, musicians and managers, writing stories, clarifications, remembrances.
Long story short and my point, the man writes single sentence paragraphs. Declarations, sentences, which all ought to end with exclamation points, no thought ever gets developed, no doubts ever expressed, everything clear, everything stated explicitly, opinion after opinion, judgment after judgment, no ambiguities whatsoever. I’ll take the impenetrable Faulkner over that any day (though frankly, I prefer my T.R. Pearson, and others who write long, long sentences.)