Down the rabbit hole we go. So much for the simple suggestion to the OP
By the way, that recommendation is based not only on my own limited experience, but also known hopping rates for a variety of commercial sour breweries using aged hops.
Moving on...
The point I'm trying to make: calculated
IBU is not a great marker for antimicrobial-activity vs the
amount of hops used in the beer.
It sounds like you might be disagreeing or not understanding what I said. I'm not sure, so I'll explain further.
IBU is calculated based solely on isomerization of alpha acids, yes?
Alpha acids are not the only anti-bacterial compound in hops. Other compounds in hops do have a strong effect, including oxidized beta acids (particularly significant in aged hops), polyphenols, and essential oils, none of which are included in the IBU calculation.
Dry hopping is known to inhibit souring. IBU calculations simply don't explain this.
http://www.milkthefunk.com/wiki/Hops#Dry_Hopping
Anecdotally, as little as 4 grams of dry hop per gallon immediately stops
L. plantarum metabolism (also indicating that the hop activity is not reduced at low pH).
It follows that IBU calculations from late kettle additions will be similarly useless for estimating the antibacterial effect of the hop amount used.
At normal beer pH there is a non trivial amount of non-isomerized acids in solution,
[...]
as a matter of fact,
some studies suggest that the non-isomerized form actually has a much stronger bacteriostatic action.
Agreed, this also proves my point. IBU calculations only account for the isomerized alpha acids.
Would a lab measurement of IBU provide a better predictor of the antimicrobial activity of a hop addition? Probably, but do home brewers have easy access to that? Obviously not yet.