I wasn't suggesting they were.
Observations:
This list seems extremely tight.
Having played against it, it seems to be fairly strong (compared to the rest of the metagame).
Lim-Duls Vault and Dark Confidant are competing strategies (Dark Confidant provides control, LDV provides "beatdown" by allowing you to combo out quickly).
Question:
Against the majority of the metagame, do you think you're the beatdown or the control?
Suggestion:
After answering that question for yourself, shift to 4 maindeck Confidants (if control) or 4 maindeck LDVs (if "beatdown") and 2 of the other card (and board the other 1~2 as both are "good enough" cards in their own right).
Also if you're the control against the bulk of the metagame, you may also want the 4th Counterbalance main, cutting down to 1 LDV in the main (I'll make an assumption that the mana curve in this deck is "correct" and that if at all possible all 2cc cards should be replaced by 2cc cards).
Note: I don't actually subscribe to the Flores belief that "Either 0 or 4 copies is right and nothing in between." I do however find it strange that the deck has the "I want to control the game" package of Counterbalance Top Confidant juxtaposed with the "I want to win when I untap after tutoring" of LDV, when it seems like it should focus on one or the other, and then have the other plan sideboarded. If against the metagame you're the control by far 50% and the beatdown by far 50% (ie, everyone is either playing Belcher or MUC), then it's likely fair to go 100% in the middle and then board appropriately. However if you're pretty sure you're going to be the control deck 70% of time, why not just stuff the LDVs into the board and focus on controlling the game more? Then against the decks where you're the beatdown, you bring in the LDVs (and the man plan? over the confidants and the couple extra copies of the combo).
Summary: I think Confidant + LDV is slightly unfocused (and that may not be a bad thing, depending on the metagame).