@Carl We are both suggesting the same thing, but our reasons behind it seem to be different.
In my view, $2k is already accounted for in the unchanged basis. Basis is reduced by 16k (total FMV reduction) and then increased by 16k (total restoration). So net change to basis is $0. No new asset is added. I hold this to be correct adjustment to the basis and it will not screw things up in the depreciation history, as well as the future depreciation calculations.
In your view, the $2k should be added as another asset which results in changing the cost basis of damaged asset somehow and affects depreciation calculations but for simplicity you are suggesting that this change be omitted.
I am sorry but I have not yet understood the "technically correct" calculation that you seem to follow. If you don't mind can you elaborate more on it.
