Having had a look at your interesting Wiki article, I would like to point out that my remarks on the Antiochene nature of early evidence, above, in the comment beginning "A couple of other points", also give an answer of sorts to the Orthodox idea (which I find curious) that the chrism of Peter falls not just on Rome but on every episcopacy. I think it would be easy to refute that from several early passages, but the fact that Antioch itself, in its early glory days, seems to recognize the Petrine supremacy in Rome, does sound like an answer.