'By that measure, every improvement by anyone would qualify as a "new" system.'
No. Do you understand what an artillery system is?
' What can you cite as a significant change in the 1805 System?'
See page 62 of the Zhmodikovs' Tactics of the Russian Army in the Napoleonic Wars, Volume I:
'Many important improvements in artillery equipment and training had been made before 1805. The aiming device...was designed by A.I. Markevich, and instroduced in 1802...In 1803 new two-wheeled caissons were introduced. It was found that the large and heavy four-wheeled caissons were inconvenient in battle. New caissons for different sized guns were the same in size, but contained a different number of cells for ready ammunition. The weight of all artillery equipment was reduced and more strictly standardized. In 1805 the Artillery Committee issued a set of drawings of all artillery equipment, known as 'the 1805 system', and sent copies to all artillery works.'
That is an excellent description of what makes up the equipment and gun side of an artillery system. Further, this system was put into production in whole, not the partial adoption of the Systeme AN XI by the French which supplemented rather than replaced the Gribeauval System. that isn't 'dismissing the significance of the French change' but explaining it.
I am curious as to why you are asking questions that could be easily resolved by taking a look at the publications that have been listed on the forum during the discussions. Surely you have access to a good portion of them. If not, or you won't do it, have you merely assigned the duty of 'sharpshooter' to yourself in order to continue discussions or is it something else? Your questions are quite elementary overall. The reason I'm asking is that when I have questions of this type I usually look them up, and if that takes getting hold of referenced materials that I haven't see, then I do that which is very helpful in continuing interesting discussions.