Record Usage and Interpretation

Dear EE,

I have quite a number of inherited family certificates including the attached marriage certificate of my grandparents. I would love some feedback on my attempt below. 

Source List Entry

Grant Family Papers. Privately held by Renee Michelle McLean, New South Wales, Australia.

First Reference Note

I've come across an amendment situation that I've never seen before in the Canadian Census records and I'm not quite sure how to treat it.

The page image shows an enumeration district of 1, but the page is stamped to indicate the enumeration district was 45. The initial page of the book has an image-time-note showing the subdistrict (not the enumeration district) was 45 and it has been catalogued by the Library and Archives Canada as subdistrict 45. If one uses what is on the image, one cannot locate the record.

Dear Collective Wisdom: I was researching a probate record from 1870 in Harrison County, Texas and came across the following description of a horse in the inventory: "Davy Crockett horse." It was valued at $25. A quick perusal of the internet gave me only toy horse figurines and other Davy Crockett ephemera. Has anyone here come across this description? Or, does anyone know of a good reference for horses or know of a horse scholar? Thank you in advance for any assistance!

Dear editor;

Dear Editor;

Dear Editor;

Pages pp. 105–114 of Evidence Explained, 3rd. ed. revised, hold QuickCheck Sheets for Private Holdings. Various components are placed first in the Source List Entries. Is the style of Source List Entry, on a given sheet, the recommended one or are they more for illustration of the different possibilities? For one's own archives, could one always use a Collection-first format, so that it is always clear to the reader that the material resides in the stated person archives/files?

Dear Editor;

In a 230,000-word WW1 transcription, I am encountering multiple instance of "VILLERS-lez-CAGNICOURT". In this particular type military history text, geographical names are (by convention) shown in capital letters, except for "joining words." As such, the correct spelling would be "VILLERS-lès-CAGNICOURT" or possibly "VILLERS-les-CAGNICOURT." 

Unfortunately; the occurrences of errors, in a fairly short list of places, are so numerous that using the quote-and-square-bracket method of showing corrections would severely disrupt the flow of the text.

Dear Editor;

In order to review the war diaries of Canadian units in the First World War, one often needs to convert the hand-written or typescript image copies into a more legible form for further analysis. It's a rather laborious process and not one that I'd like to have to repeat. So; I'd like to ask your opinion on whether a rigorous adherence to "classical" transcription guidelines is really warranted given the following circumstances.

So I'm trying to be much more careful about the words I'm using to express confidence in my reports. While I fully agree with the listing from 1.6, how do I inform the readers that I'm using that hierarchy? Appendix, footnote, ... I don't see other reports listing that, but not many readers will be able to tease out the hierarchy without a cheat sheet. I'm leaning towards an appendix.