I think you got epochs and trends mixed up strategy. The thireoforos did not appear in the ear you are talking about. The hoplite did not dissapear at that time. The Greek city hoplite began vanishing only after Chaeronea, and that was a quite slow process and some cities (Sparta?) didn't adopt to the new situation.

And when they switched, they didn't turn Thireophoroi (which was a soldier type used mostly in the 3rd century BC, although it appeared at the end of the 4th and has never been the mainstay of the Greek armies, but on the contrary usually we are talking about mercenaries) but phalangites or peltasts. The Aetolian league, for instance, could deploy a large number of Peltasts at the height of their power, and a smaller number of hoplites. That is what the ancient sources tell us. Most large city states switched to the Macedonian phalanx model, but employed great numbers of peltasts, as the citizen-army ideal was beggining to wade.

Also, the Iphikratean reforms might aid Philipos in his idea for the Macedonian Phalanx, but the city states at Cheronea deployed standard Hoplites, with aspis and spear, not "Iphikratian hoplites/peltasts" or Thireoforoi.

You argued that after Iphikrates everybody turned into the hybrid hoplite/peltast. And I am telling you, this is not the case. Luke agrees with me.

I kinda find your idea pretty interesting, as a theoretical model of the evolution of Greek warfare. A nice continuation theory. But it's only a theoretical model and as such it's practical application to the 4th-3rd century Greek warfare is problematic.