In the nearly 14 years I have been doing this I have found , in most cases ( there are exceptions ) the correctors rarely like being corrected back. If you feel qualified to offer page after page after page of "Anomaly reports" then expect to be corrected from time to time when it's obvious you don't have experience in OOB design. If you did you wouldn't suggest an infantry unit class should be given armour ratings. It would seem it's OK to tell us we are in error but not the other way round because that's "attitude". Would it help if I sprinkled more of these around ??
Everything in that post was an explanation of why it was done the way it was done and I only bothered to comment, so perhaps it doesn't happen again, because those two points caught my eye when I was cutting and pasting the info to our "to-check" list .
If you choose to continue your project and make incorrect assumptions expect to be corrected again . If you consider that "attitude" then so be it.
Don