In my opinion its not just a matter of following the rationale, its a matter of following the otherwise consistant logic, no matter how absurd Colt has been over the years and dicking with it.
All the weapons in the CAR-15 family, with the exception of the 608 and 607 (sort of, there was a forward assist equipped subvariant) were produced in pairs with and without forward assist, including the export/commercial variants. All the other 5.56mm SMG/Carbines were paired up, straight into the the export 11.5" guns.
You had:
609 - 10" SMG w/ forward assist
610 - 10" SMG w/o forward assist
619 - 10" SMG w/ forward assist (export/commercial)
620 - 10" SMG w/o forward assist (export/commercial)
629 - 11.5" Commando w/ forward assist
639 - 11.5" Commando w/ forward assist (export/commercial)
640 - 11.5" Commando w/o forward assist (export/commercial)
Now we know that the 639 number was reused for an export/commercial 9mm SMG type in the 1970s, around the time the 3" muzzle device was declared a silencer and the Carter administration banned the sale of sound suppression equipment abroad. In my mind there's really no doubt that this led to the development of the 11.5" transitional types, and final A2 types, in the 700 series. The first batches of 733s from most accounts were essentially 639s with the A2 flash hiders and grips and some pretensions to being "A2" standard. Some of these probably existed with birdcage flash hiders making them even closer in actual spec. I can see the 630 being reused or being planned to be reused as well around the same time, seeing as the entire 630 series became a holding tank for 9mm weapons, which only appeared in the late 1970s and early 1980s IIRC. That a decision was made to start with 633 to match up with the 733 is something I can easily see as well.
I can also see the USAF requiring replacement weapons and parts for their decidedly old GAU-5A/A weapons by the 1980s. That Colt might have assigned a new model number, 649, to account for this, could easily have happened. With the exception of the 640, which is clearly paired up with the 639 and dates back to the very late 1960s from what I can tell, the rest of the 640 series are rifles dating back to the early-mid-1970s. Since the 650 series is full of weapons dating back to the specialist weapons dating back to the late 1960s and early 1970s, it seems decidedly odd that circa 1967, that Colt would have tossed the weapon into the 640 series out of sequence instead of putting it into the 650 series, like it decided to do with the 655/656. This is especially odd when you consider that the 640 appeared either at the same time or later, was of the identical configuration, and was intended to be an export/commercial model, at least from what I can tell.
I honestly think I might be on to something with this theory about 9mm weapons reusing numbers in the 630 series. I would fit with a known instance and lead to Bartocci putting it in the list as a 9mm variant. Not one of the many cited works I have on this are consistent either, leading me to determine that this has been a source of confusion for everyone who has tried to investigate it.