I would agree with the latter conclusion. While it is possible that the makam was altered later, we mostly see this 'dynamic makam classification' (for the lack of a better term; the best examples of this are between MSS and Edvâr) between makams with large repertoires and smaller ones with similar definitions, respectively; Rast with Rehâvi, Pençgâh and Sazkâr for instance. Saba-Buselik is not a makam that is very open to this type of alteration; the makam requires a very specific 'modulation' (or rather a combination of makams) that is not often seen in earlier works, it is not a coincidence that it is a relatively rare makam. Basically the only conclusion is that this is pseudographia.
Quick addition (answer?) to [USER=5]@Derûnhân[/USER]'s last sentence, pseudographia existed to some extent in all eras of the Makam tradition, due to the nature of transmission (see the Maraghi corpus); however, the 'explosion' of pseudographic pieces in the 19th and early 20th centuries, especially concerning early composers, is likely due to the encroaching Western tradition and its perceived superiority. Compilers of Ottoman compositions during these times had to 'create' a repertoire for earlier times, in order to compete with the earlier repertoire of Western music. Ironically, the actual earlier repertoire of makam music was there, literally hiding in plain sight; in the works we now call Kantemiroğlu Edvârı, Kevserî Mecmuası and Mecmua-ı Saz ü Söz.
(After reading this again, I do feel a bit out of line with how much rambling I did, but I guess my main point is that in the late Ottoman period there were a lot of [seemingly deliberate] false attributions, so this should not be a surprise.)
