^ I think it is much to the Okudas credit that they state multiple times within the books themselves that they are most definitely not canon. They do
respect the viewing audience enough not to go trampling over the fans own interpretations of events, and they say quite explicitly that what they're offering is only their own
personal take on the continuity. Even as members of the production team they don't try to "pull rank" and claim that what they say has any greater credence than anything else (even though they could
have done, if they'd wanted).
Obviously the writing staff did often call up the Okudas to consult on continuity matters, and those calls sometimes meant that things which had previously appeared as conjecture within the Chronology were stated on screen as fact and were made canon. But even then, there were also many times when decisions were made despite
what the Chronology says, rather than being true to the letter of the Okudas' conjecture. Which was a healthy attitude to take.
I like both books, I always did. But I don't hold them up as 'canon', nothing can be held in that high regard until it is established beyond reasonable doubt in a television episode or movie. And even then I can imagine there will be just as much contradictory evidence to make a case that it still
(Just throwing this out there: is there anyone else who tend to be selective about what parts of the Chronology they accept? Personally I do think what the Okudas say about TNG, DS9 and VOY has got credibility due to their both working on all of those shows. But on the other hand, everything involving TOS is questionable because, apart from the last couple movies, Okuda had no "inside knowledge" to pull from.)