It's a conundrum indeed. As you keep citing Wilson in your argument, it is interesting to compare his comments with your initial posting on the shortcomings of Russian artillery in general.
The Russians were definitely loathe to lose guns in combat-all artillerymen were. But the Russians took that to the 'nth degree' and would abandon the troops they were supposed to be supporting if they thought their guns in danger. That was one of the practices that Russian commanders, especially artillery commanders, such as Sievers, Kutaisov, and Yermelov tried to change during the period.
“The Russians, however, wisely do not attach too much reputation or disgrace to the possession or loss of a gun. They think that it is better to fight it to the last moment, and let an enemy gain it dearly, than to withdraw it too soon for a preservation that also preserves the enemy.”
Further, French artillery officers and NCOs were more skilled because of the artillery education system in France, something the Russians were far behind in.
“The artillerymen are of the best description, and the NCOs equal, but the artillery officers of inferior rank have not the same title to estimation as in the other European services for their education is not formed with the same care, and their service does not receive the same encouragement. To them is the toil and responsibility, but the honour is by no means assured them. Some favourite officer, completely ignorant of the science and practice of the artillery, is frequently in the day of action appointed for the day to the command of the batteries the credit is in the dispatches given to him for a service which depended on long previous systematic arrangements and laborious attention, with which he was never acquainted: an injustice mortifying to the corps, injurious to the individual artillery officer, and gravely detrimental to the general interests.”
Lastly, when the Arakcheev reforms were done, the older gun carriage design that was used by the Prussians and Austrians was copied as well as the older, less efficient screw quoin, and not the elevation screw used by the French and British.
“The piece is well formed, and the carriage solid, without being heavy. The harness and rope-tackling is of the best quality for service, and all the appurtenances of the gun complete and well arranged."
And also, in general terms:
“The Russian artillery is of the most powerful description. No other army moves with so many guns, and with no other army is it in a better state of equipment, or more gallantly served.”
“The horse artillery is no less well appointed, and the mounted detachments that accompany the guns ride excellent powerful horses, and form both in real character and appearances a corps not inferior to any in European services.”
I am sure that many people here will be aware of Wilson's comments, but it is important to point out that his assessment of the Russian artillery is generally very positive, and surely it is innappropriate for you to focus on the one paragraph that contains a negative comment without considering the whole. Nowhere does Wilson state that the Russian artillery was inferior to the French in performance on the battlefield. Even within the negative paragraph, the implication is that despite the credit being given to the undeserving, the "long previous systematic arrangements and laborious attention" ensured that there was credit to be given in the first place.