I have been wondering lately about text fragments, and especially Philodemus material, and that it is important to stress the fragmentary nature of that material.
I happened to find this question on r/Classics "Are fragmented Greek texts worth your time?" and found this to be a fun and important hint about how to deal with the fragments
But the question is this: How much of interpretation of fragmentary texts is dependent on the translator's imagination, such that we cannot trust certain parts of Philodemus due to so many missing words and sentences. We need to draw a line when it comes to those parts which are potentially misleading due to the "creativity" of the translator.