From many mistakes I have noticed the key one is that you consider Danube as a fix border (it was not fix when the Romani Limes existed, less later).
I suppose "many mistakes" represent not adhering to a pseudoscientific crackpot fantasy theory of Daco-Romanian continuity formulated by the Ceausescu era Romanian pseudo-historians and pseudo-archeologists?
As this society deals primarily with Y-DNA descend, may I ask you what is your Y-DNA and subclade? I say this because there are great many internet Romanian defenders of Romanized Dacian origin of Romanians who don't even know their haplogroup. Once they get tested they mostly fall within two categories:
1) Indigenous pre-Romanian population of the modern day Romania and Moldavia composed of primarily Slavic, then also Germanic, Dacian remnants, Sarmatian, Turkic and other elements.
2) Immigrant population with recent Medieval genetic ties with the Balkan populations such as Serbs, Albanians, Bulgarians, Greeks, Aromanians representing the early Romanian speakers who crossed the Danube in high Medieval times and subsequently Romanianised the first block.
This is known despite Romanians not being well tested (and last study was done 10 years) ago, nevertheless as the Balkan populations are so well tested, so many Romanians clearly fall in young genetic clusters of undeniable recent Balkan (and non-Dacian) origin.
Y-DNA test from what I have seen is a very good cure for the obsession with the debunked Daco-Romanian continuity theory.
Although some Romanians are still finding a hard time to cope with it. For ex. some invent "Aromanian" origin, as it is obvious to them they aren't Dacians, but linguistically Romanian and Aromanian separated in 9th or 10th century meaning that Aromanian must also be descended of the Romanised Dacian population, and Aromanians have nothing to do with Dacia genetically.
This is a very summary idea. Romanian histography is extremely well developed (it nothing special about it, but as with everything it is about the money e.g. Academia Română has annual budget of 150 million EURO annually; I checked with yours - it is only 6.5 million EURO, not to mention numerous Faculties of History/Archeology (25,) with some 100 different institutes
I hope I will provide you with some useful (although only explaining very summary) on the topics of your interest
Money plays part of course. If you want to play
my academy has higher budget than thou so it is correct card, let me play it as well. Let me provide you with a far more useful map. Map endorsed by scholars from Western universities (and there are actually more of them, this includes just 3)
funded by 9499.5 million "EURO". Lets not get into how many Hungarian universities have done very good studies on Romanian ethnogenesis..
So your 150 million euros say Romanians are Romanised Dacians, whereas
10 billion euros says Romanians in Romania since 1180 AD. 
https://spw.uni-goettingen.de/projects/aig/mp4/SQI-INT-001.mp4https://spw.uni-goettingen.de/projects/aig/mp4/SQI-INT-004.mp4 As prof. de Vaan says at 15:44 in the 2nd video
Romanian must have originated well South of the Danube. When it comes to Serbian authors prof. Loma also commented how proto-Romanian and proto-Albanian ethnogenesis are closely connected and that either modern Romanian and Albanian narratives are both incorrect or one of them is incorrect.
As supported by the most esteemed scholars both are incorrect. Albanian didn't develop on the territory of the modern day Albania and Romanian didn't develop in Romania..
It is noticeable also in citation rankings of Romanian historians and archeologist (abroad and in Romania) researching prehistory, antics and middle ages.
There is so much material produced about topics you discussed that it is impossible to get a grip of them, if you no at focused on that research area
Romanian historians are still forcing the ridiculous Daco-Romanian continuity theory or trying to find compromises (such as Florin Curta).
But because Romanians have close genetic ties to Serbs, Albanians, Bulgarians, Greeks, Aromanians and because many of these have proto-Romanian or Vlach origin
allowing pseudo-scholars from Romania to forge their history means also forging all of these histories. Which cannot and is not being allowed, which is why for the most part outside of Romania nobody (rightly) gives any credibility to Romanian authors when it comes to questions of the proto-Romanian ethnogenesis.
For example already in Communist era Romanian (pseudo) archeologists have even presented the archeological culture of the First Bulgarian Empire as the culture of the Romanised Dacians. That's just one "infamous" episode.
What can be said from the genetic point of view is that the Daco-Romanian continuity has been thoroughly trashed and it is not even worth mentioning it at all. The Romanian Dawns map is the Holy Grail of the Romanian ethnogenesis as supported by some of the most eminent Western scholars. There may be few Romanized Dacians among Romanians, but these stem from the Roman population which left Dacia in 271 AD.
When mentioning the dates, how can we miss the silly notion that the Balkan Roman stems from the area under Roman control for 165 years as opposed to 400-500+ years areas where it actually developed..
