Why didn't you cite the sources as some of us have the same reference works? The reader should be told who wrote what and from where the material came. It isn't necessary here, of course, but it would have helped.
You should separate what was being talked about with what was actually being done or had been done. The mass of material you've listed in the postings either had a lot of errors in it or wasn't organized well.
No one that I've seen has denied the existence of the Systeme AN XI or referred to it as 'rubbish.' I do believe that you've overestimated what was put into the field and/or actually produced. However, it wasn't put into production as a complete system and supplemented rather than replaced the Gribeauval System. Your inclusion of Gassendi's opinions, and he was not alone, confirm that. Further, modifications to a system do not constitute a new system, merely a modified one.
And I might remind you that no Gribeauval, no AN XI, etc. I do believe you underestimate what Gribeauval accomplished and how far his reforms extended to a new French artillery arm. He was the reason that the French had an excellent artillery arm when the wars began in 1792. You might want to read more material on Gribeauval himself as much of what you have stated on him is incorrect, as well as the conclusions you have drawn from your opinions. He was an outstanding artilleryman and knew his business. I'm presenting a paper on French artillery reform at the end of the month and if you'd like a copy I'd be more than happy to send you one.
I disagree with you on Rene Chartrand. I have found him to be a very careful researcher and historian. While no writer and historian is without error, I find his work to be of a very high quality and quite scholarly.