I consistently find that in 1815, agendas dominate, lies are prevalent, and direct contradictions common.
We discussed once before, there seems to have been a race to the courthouse of history, with often what gets there first becoming established.
The conventional history of 1815 is horribly flawed. I was in a discussion today with someone who chastised me for believing any memoir, or any statement in any memoir or eyewitness account. However, this person has many strong beliefs about the campaign, and their source: memoirs, eyewitness accounts (unless there is video I am not aware of.) What I believe is fact, what you believe is based on crap! Feels right...
In the end, it comes down to making a judgement, hopefully by assembling many sources. There are few facts, especially in 1815 because one cannot even trust the correspondence to be fact. (I trust most of it, but note, Coppens/Damiens make strong cases for forgeries.)
So then a strong refutation case is built based on numerous accounts... but there is something very powerful in that belief which was forged in the early accounts of an event we have studied and have believed for decades.
Hence, for some, Grouchy's order book is pristine, Hulot cannot lie, and all Napoleon does is lie. QED.