You write, "I am slightly surprised that you place such reliance in the absolute authenticity of Cs memoirs with respect to what N said. What moves you to that position? "
I don't believe "absolutely" in much of anything.
Caulaincourt was at least personally there and in a position to talk to N. and Caulaincourt is one of the very few people who personally talked to and had a relationship with both A. and N. I also appreciated that Caulaincourt was not just another general or political figure but was instead N.'s Grand Ecuyer during the campaign. I like that Caulaincourt had a sense of shame and betrayal by N. in the Duke of Enghien affair; at least he had a working conscience, a rare commodity surrounding N.
Must say, in spite of myself, came to enjoy the company of Caulaincourt during the campaign. His memoir makes it perfectly understandable why he would be desirable as a close traveling companion. He wasn't a yes-man. He wasn't bowled over by the "great man." He, unlike most of those close to N., was able to retain his humanity.
If there is any legitimate scholarly problems with his memoirs -other than just not liking him or what he has to say- let's see the references.