It seemed to me you were talking about whether or not we were getting the cues "raw" as originally performed, without any editing. I was saying that maybe that's an unrealistic standard to go by, since even the "pure" cues can be edited.
No, that's – ha, I feel a weird sense of displacement, like we've switched roles a few pages later in the thread from our previous argument – that seems an over-literal interpretation of what I was trying to say. Cleaning something up for quality is one thing; of course it's an editor's job to assemble the best version of a cue, say using the beginning of one take and the ending of another, also omitting that part where the percussionist knocked over the cymbal and it clattered on the floor, or the orchestra manager sneezed during a take, etc.
But going the extra mile and fading one completed cue into another so you lose the ending of one, that would be different. Esp in working with material of great archival value; and especially where "the composer's intentions" are among the guiding values. I guess I agree a little more with Dalen as I've come to understand the issue better.