It's reasonable to believe that different styles of relics and materials are found in different regions.
When I lived outside in Jefferson County Missouri, finding Native American relics was different than finding them in where I am in Indiana. Likewise the material utilized are different, just not for different culture periods, but across the board. Sure I find Burlington flint in Indiana, and I found Harrison County flint in the Ozark foothills, but not in the same quantity.
I can't tell for sure from photographs if a stone has almost microscopic flaking. Likewise I would question whether anyone could tell if an item is authentic without question from a photo.
I suspect that early cultures may have utilized rough stone flakes, spalls and objects more so than a more highly organized and learned culture. If so these may have been earlier than Clovis culture. One would have to then believe on material this old, weathering, erosion, exfoliation and breakdown could result in a false positive sort on an item. Where a rock appears to have indications indicative of a used relic tool.
It could also lean the other way and give a false negative on what would be an authentic relic - where a true relic is thought to be simply a rock.
Many look for an obvious stone flaked or pecked stone tool, while others specialize in what they may find more of - the older somewhat rougher tools.
Beauty is in the eye of the beholder. Good thing as I am one gnarly dude and my wife still loves me.
Likewise collectability and desirability is also in the eye of the beholder.
Look harder, as likely there are other more finely made native American tools and relics in the area, but don't discount what your finding a simply nothing without close inspection under magnification.