You can always demonstrate that 'conventional history is flawed' because every historian has to select from a mass of contradictory sources and which version comes out depends on which sources are made use of (this is where bias tends to creep in) there is always going to be some material which doesn't get included which other writers will pick up on later. With major events like Waterloo there is a particular tendency to an Official Version predominating but there have always been writers pointing out the errors, just as the official Napoleon Correspondance led to a rush of people publishing the excluded material.
I'm not knocking your research, which is very impressive, but just your conclusions. I think that when making specific allegations against individuals the standard of proof should be rather higher than when just arguing fine points of campaign manoeuvres. I've no concern for these particular individuals, Bourmont was certainly a deserter and how far he was a traitor rather depends on who he was supposed to be loyal to; I would not be surprised if Soult was a traitor but I don't think you've demonstrated it to a reasonable standard of probability at present.