The Neizang dafangdeng jing 内藏大方等經 was included in Dao'an's list of anonymous scriptures, Fajing and Yancong, omitted in LDSBJ, and included again in KYL. Hayashiya discusses two possible reasons why it was omitted in LDSBJ, and argues that neither of them is good enough to justify the omission.
(1) The first possible reason is that the Neizang dafangdeng jing might be the same text as the Fozang dafangdeng jing 佛藏大方等經, as Zhisheng suspected in the KYL, because the Fozang dafangdeng jing does appear in LDSBJ while the Neizang dafangdeng jing is omitted; but conversely, the Fozang... does not appear anywhere in CSZJJ, but it does include Neizang... (as part of Dao'an's list of anonymous scriptures). However, Fajing and Yancong record both titles, recording Fozang... as a free-standing translation of an individual chapter 別品殊譯 of the *Buddhāvataṃsaka 華厳經. Moreover, KYL itself shows Fozang... as translated by Daoyan 道巖 in the Song 宋 period, following LDSBJ. This cannot be the case if Fozang... was the same as Neizang..., since the latter is included in Dao'an's list. Thus, Neizang... should be shown separately from Fozang..., because the current evidence for their suspected identity is rather weak.
(2) The second possible reason is offered by Tokiwa, which is that Neizang... might be the same text as the Neizang jing 内藏經listed in LDSBJ as translated by An Shigao 安世高. However, Hayashiya points out that LDSBJ is highly unreliable, and even if this entry on the Neizang jing does indeed refer to the present Neizang dafangdeng jing, then we should excise the Neizang jing, not the Neizang dafangdeng jing. Thus, Hayashiya concludes that Tokiwa's reasons for suspecting that the present Neizang dafangdeng jing is the same text as LDSBJ's Neizang jing are not sufficient.
On this basis, Hayashiya concludes that the present Neizang dafangdeng jing 内藏大方等經 should be retained, and regarded as an anonymous scripture of the 西晋 period or earlier.