The assumptions and conclusions related to the first Clovis artifacts are built on a fragile framework, but those assertions must be debunked before we can begin to build a new chronology.
In Archaeology, the first who stakes a claim must be dethroned before a new pretender can emerge. This is difficult. All than I can say is that the evidence does not support the accepted scenario. The question is how we confirm the accepted scenario, or when to we turn to one of the alternative?
I believe that current science is completely influenced by political objectives, and therefore any conclusion is colored by unreliable information. Objective conclusion are elusive.
I remember the assertion by a sceptic of the Clovis first hypothesis that most archeologists would get to the layer where Clovis artifacts were found and then stop digging. Apparently a lot of those who kept digging were crackpots and clouded the issue with easily debunked claims of much greater age than the evidence supported e.g. dubious claims of 20,000+ year old tools, were used to justify ignoring better evidence of occupation 13 to 14 thousand years ago.