The problem with the critique being leveled by some in this thread is that it is entirely ahistorical. If Franz Joseph Schnaubelt professed to approach the material he was given not as a documentarian, but as someone willing to snip and rethink, then THAT is what he should be judged on. Given that choice, I will call him on having a deflector with nothing behind it and a distorted hangar copied from TMoST, etc. But the BS being leveled by someone that has never to our knowledge published a thing, never dealt with producers or TV studios, never dealt with reverse schematicizing blurry film clips as the sole way of pleasing a bunch of kids including your own child... The preposterousness of this pomposity is so great as to demand someone say "enough already." I detest bullies. And I detest even more the practice of engaging in unsubstantiated bluster with the hope that just maybe, if you scare enough people with your unveiled vitriol, no one will call you on all the holes in your argument. I don't care how many times this guy says the author of the Technical Manual was a lowly Lost in Space fan. It is irrelevant to the judgement of his work if that work did not depend upon him being a Trek fan. I mean, my God... did William Shirer have to be a fan of the Third Reich to write his masterpiece? I guess Thomas Harris had to be a fan of canibalism to create Hanibal Lechter. It is a nonsense straw man argument that someone that has done nothing like the thing he is criticizing can level, stand back repeatedly with his hands neatly folded across his chest and say, "You see? I was right." We'll no... you weren't.
Anyone that has actually read those Trekplace interviews, or other material online, or, hell, actually ever TALKED to the guy, would know the problem with his phaser 2 drawing stemmed from shadows in his source photo. The commodore rank? As Tin Man points out, Schnaubelt was trying to rationalize the rank system much as he was trying to rationalize the ship layout. I frankly think Schnaubelt was mistaken in his conclusions about the ranks-- but because his changes were unnecessary given the fact the TOS producers were drawing upon WW2 naval experience and not because they didn't fit the US Navy practice of the 1970s.
In short, this bluster only serves to obscure the stated purpose of this thread- to find the legitimate flaws in the work and correct them. I hate to see people that actually have something worthwhile to say drowned out by the din of, what was it? Oh yeah... cognitive dissonance.