The question is a courtesy. I don't want to blindside you. I am quite familiar with Zhmodikov and Zhmodikov. It's excellent. In fact, I reviewed that very passage before I posted.
I think anyone reading them would understand that: 1) the Russian improved upon the system Paul I had installed 2) the equipment manufactured against the 1805 blueprints were known as System of 1805 pieces 3) improvements and blueprints were not, in any reasonable sense, a "new" system.
Your posts seem wedded to the idea that the Grand Armée was the best thing since spreadable fromage, and so was their artillery. We can accept that Russian artillery was pretty good, and maybe the student surpassed the teacher, so long as we acknowledge that it was learned at the knee of the master. Therefore Russian artillery must have started bad and gotten better. Where? well the System of 1805 must be "new"... Same deal with the French artillery. Gribeauval is good. An XI is good. A mix of Gribeauval and XI must be double plus good, rather than a manufacturing and logistic headache...
It's as silly as the bricole debate, except that it's more important, and, unfortunately we can endless debate "new" without ever having something as definitive as a contemporary engraving of Austrians using a bricole.