Where you err is in your inherent bias against the French. It appears you cannot give them credit even when it is due. As to Friedland, what happened is very well documented and if you'd like me to send you both the I Corps after action report and Senarmont's own after action report (they are not the same) I most certainly will. I do think you are being entirely unreasonable in your 'assessment' of Friedland. However, that is your right. You've been given the information, what you do with it, or how you judge it is up to you.
As to your 'assessment' of the Gribeauval System, you are way off base? How do you come to the conclusion that the field pieces were 'rickety' for instance? Adye, for one, greatly admired Gribeauval's artillery system and the field pieces were excellent, the 8-pounder, which has been much-maligned unreasonably by some current authors, was the favored French horse artillery piece. The field pieces were certainly superior to those of Prussia and Austria and I would submit they were also superior to the Russian field pieces of the 1805 System. Russian artillery General Sievers thought them equal in quality in 1807. The only field pieces I would rate higher were those of the British after the block trail was introduced. In short, your 'assessment' is incorrect and cannot be supported by any type of off-hand remark devoid of any analysis whatsoever.