I don't agree that the variations are normal.
The issue of June 14 vs 15 was extremely big, especially dealing with these individuals.
Clouet and Bourmont would each blame the other in the decades after Waterloo for the defection. Clouet would tell a fanciful story of walking the field of Waterloo the night of the battle that brings tears to his eyes... Bourmont would tell Pasquier that it was Clouet who forced him to defect.
So its true that we'll never know what happened in detail, though it seems like we know the end result.
The more important question is, do you apply the same scrutiny to the conventional history of the campaign?
Even in the condensed version of the last few days, I believe I have demonstrated that the conventional history is flawed, and for many key points, relies on little to no evidence.