What is needed, is a description and discussion of the construction of cannister of different nations in the period and also the use it was put to. The use and range, I hypothersize, dictated to an extent the design/construction.
The French AnXI cannisters had a longer range and more penetration of the target than the Gribeauval type. I will post the data, but the tests are not imperical as the AnXi cannister had a higher number of shot to the Gribeauval type, thus given the higher number of balls, the percentage of hits increased automatically, so it does not neccisarily mean that the new cannister type was any more effective than its predicessor, as we do not know how it compares to the same number of balls in an old type cannister. The tests and results are biased in favour of the new cannister.
The ballistics tests were carried out to vindicate a theory rather than provide imperical data for a new theory. For example in 1802, Gribeauval guns were compared to AnXI, the 8-pdr was compared to the 6-pdr using the 6-pdr powder charge. Fairly obviously the 8-pdr did not perfom as well in the tests as the new 6-pdr. In 1814, the obverse tests were carried out, a 6-pdr against a 4-pdr, the 6-pdr fired on a 4-pdr charge was out performed by the 4-pdr. The french were not known for creating fair and imperical tests.
In the 1770's La Vallerie argued Gribeauvals guns were of poor design as they exploded. This was due to the new guns being fired on the same charge as the guns of La Vallerie, which were more akin to siege guns than field artillery, and fairly predictably Gribeauvals guns exploded as they were firing a charge twice or more, than the service charge.