I essentially agree, but as I said a ways back, a respectful tweaking of FJ’s manual can be done which need not be based on any arbitrary criteria or involve subjective notions deemed either “good” or “bad”. What I propose in this regard is to deal only with those things he left out or clearly got wrong. IOW’s, we may not in all cases know why he did what he did, or if it was by accident or design (the subjective part), but we can know what to “fix” based on the factual data that we now have in our possession, and which he did not (the objective part). Further, this can be done in a way that does not invalidate what he did, but rather compliments and expands on it. For instance; his Phaser II can be just a different model, or perhaps the TOS era equivalent of an “assault phaser”? This way, we can use a corrected phaser II diagram alongside his version. The same can be done with starship interior facilities like the auxiliary control and the emergency manual monitor among others; these could be incorporated into the already established framework of multiple subclasses and individual ship modifications etc. etc. and can be shown as additions or revisions to his existing technical orders. Having said that, like most everybody else, there are things that I don’t like about FJ’s work, and things I wish he had done differently and I would like to change, but these are not things I would impose on an updated or revised FJ tech manual, for that, I would start from scratch with my own interpretation, if I were ever so inclined.