Yep, there is quite a bit from Control that is followed up on in this novel! Collateral Damage will continue the story afterwards, tying into Control as well.
I've not read any of these Section 31 books, but is the Control that's mentioned in the books the same Control that's being such a larger plot point in Disco?
On the face of it... no. There are a number of differences. However, I think if you squint you can make it work and fill some details yourself, for example as Christopher has mentioned earlier in other comment threads on this board. But I don't think it is ultimately meant to be the same entity.
They are superficially similar in that both are an artificial intelligence which runs Section 31. Novel Control is integral to the smooth operations of the entire Federation and while it won't hesitate to kill individuals to protect its own existence, it is devoted to protecting and safeguarding the Federation as a whole and wouldn't do anything like intentionally try to eradicate it. Although if one wanted to, it is easy enough to reconcile Disco Control with Novel Control.
No, but few agree with me that Discovery throws Pocket's Mirror Universe storyline out the window, so your mileage may vary.
My personal continuity is that there are multiple mirror universes so the Pocket Books storyline still occurred somewhen else.
Unless there are some major revelations coming up in the last half of DSC season 2 which I haven't seen yet (I'm up to "Light and Shadows" as of this post), I don't see anything in the DSC MU that's impossible to reconcile with the novels' MU, since the novel version has a sizeable gap surrounding that point in time, enough room for the Sato dynasty to be temporarily unseated by Georgiou and then restored after her departure. The one problematical thing is the claim about Mirror humans being light-sensitive, which clashes with prior canon as well as the books, so I assume it refers only to a subset of Mirror humans, maybe as the result of some genetic engineering experiment.
We have had this conversation before. Respectfully, I disagree, and that is my position. I don't believe any further ground would be made by retreading everything from before.
^Honestly, I don't remember having that conversation before. But of course this thread is not on that topic. Naturally, reconciling two works of fiction written with different assumptions is always going to be a business of approximations at best. It's just a question of how willing one is to fudge or rationalize the inevitable inconsistencies.
Sorry to respond to such an old post, but I'm not sure what you mean here. I just don't think the change over from mass market paperbacks to the more expensive trade paperbacks is a good one.