Another thing to consider when it comes to the accuracy of the Cs, is that their answers were not always about the questions that were vocally asked. But, you'd have to read The Wave Series to understand what was really going on during some of those sessions.
Because of things going on at the time of any particular session, Laura may have asked, vocally, a question, but mentally she was asking something different and that was what was answered. She talks about this in The Wave series. Also, as has been mentioned, some answers were given in a symbolic fashion. And there is the questions being asked in 3D and the Cs having to interpret from 3D to 6D and then try to put it into a 3D frame of reference with their answers.
So things are not as cut and dried as many would like them to be. And, there are many who don't want to take the time to read the books that could give them so much more clarity on things.
Yes, well remembered.
There has also been some bearing on who was in attendance in sessions (influencing) - Laura discusses this in footnotes, when and if applicable, in later book publication transcripts. Noted, too, have also been those in attendance who harbour particular leanings and motives, of one kind or another, in their minds that are not congruent to where things might have naturally been heading. So, the C's seem to slip in word associations - ideas to buffer some individuals with what they want to hear and see, yet not in a way that is dismissing out of hand.
It is all learning, after all, and the C's have been wonderful at challenging assumptions.
Is it also not fascinating to later review, to then delve a little deeper and find oneself with a different understanding from when it was originally read (networking is a boon for this); often involving much nuance and cross referencing.