There was massed artillery at Lodi in 1796; also at Castiglione in the same year. Marmont massed all available artillery to support Desaix's counterattack at Marengo in 1800; the Prussians faced massed French artillery at Jena in 1806. There was also massed corps artillery on the French side at Eylau in early 1807, to name a few before Friedland. So, your point is not clear to me and I really don't understand what you're trying to establish. Do you not believe that Senarmont's new tactics were effective? That they were a one-off? That massed batteries were not used by the French before and after Friedland? That Senarmont's tactics took field artillery one step further in the development of the arm? Are you actually trying to prove a point or disprove one?
What became a standard tactic was the massed artillery assault because of Friedland. As AF Becke, a British artillery officer wrote of Friedland: 'It was a salient moment in the evolution of tactics of field artillery. At last it was able to maneuver independently and handled by a great gunner it played a decisive role in the attack, mastered the hostile batteries, smashed up the infantry line itself, and, breaking it, opened a way for its own infantry to place the crown on its great tactical achievement.' AF Becke, Friedland, 41.
Again, it was another 'arrow in the quiver' so to speak of the French artillery tactics of the period, and if I may borrow from Major Becke again 'Senarmont managed to accomplish a truly great and,m a result that stands as an abiding testimony to his own genius. Senarmont's achievement with his 30 guns made clear to the military world that a new era had dawned for the artillery arm and from that time onward field artillery tactics became a subject for serious study.' Becke, 42.
And finally, 'There is no doubt that the gunner takes an especial interest in Friedland for in this battle he recognizes the birth of modern field artillery tactics...' Becke, 40.