Court documents with no punctuation

Suzanne, if we are transcribing a document, or part of a document, and it is necessary to add punctuation for clarity, then Yes, we should enclose our added punctuation in square editorial brackets.  Yes, too, it can be a visual distraction, but that can be greatly relieved by placing the bracket in subscript.  Yes, too, it's a bit tedious to do subscript for open-bracket, normal position for the comma or period, then subscript again for the close bracket, then back to normal for the rest of the text; but it does significantly lessen the visual distraction, while eliminating the possibility of creating a silent error.

Is there harm in just silently punctuating the document the way that "makes sense" to us?  Sometimes no. Often yes. We've all seen the memes that circulate on Facebook from Grammarly or elsewhere, in which the same phrase is punctuated in different ways to convey different meanings. More practically, when we're working with historical records, a silently added punctuation mark that changes the meaning of a document can have serious research consequences for us and everyone else who uses our work.

As a case at point: the acclaimed historical editor Edwin C. Bearss faced this issue when he produced A Louisiana Confederate: Diary of Felix Pierre Poché (Natchitoches: Louisiana Studies Institute, 1972). At one point in his diary, Poché described activity with "Ernest Mason Bertrand Azinor Joe & Julius Charleville." Bearss (at p. 45) punctuated this as "Ernest Mason, Bertrand Azinor, Joe & Julius Charleville."  It seems logical—two men with a first and last name, then two men who shared the same surname. But what seemed logical to Bearss created a non-existent person, that "Bertrand Azinor." Poché was actually writing about five men: Ernest Mas[s]on, and four Charleville brothers named Bertrand, Azinor, Joe & Julius.