"the smaller brachystelechids Carrolla (Maddin, Olori & Anderson, 2011) and Brachydectes (Pardo & Anderson, 2016)"

That's not Brachydectes, which is not a brachystelechid but a lysorophian; you evidently knew that and mean Quasicaecilia (Pardo, Szostakiwskyj & Anderson, 2015). Write a little more slowly! :-)

See also: "co-ossified posterior brains" (braincases of course).

Lysorophus is a nomen dubium, to which only a few incomplete vertebrae can be referred; the specimens investigated by Bolt & Wassersug (1975) are today referred to Brachydectes, though a revision of that taxon wouldn't hurt.

You mean intercentra, right?

"Possibly there was a second coronoid positioned more posteriorly along the coronoid process"

There's no space for it there in Fig. 10. Do you mean anterior/mesial?

The size of the splenial reminds me of brachystelechids (Maddin et al. 2011, Glienke 2015).

"The rectangular ectopterygoids are disarticulated but presumably sutured to the maxilla laterally, to the palatine anteriorly, and to the pterygoid medially (Fig. 7)."

What about caudally (Fig. 7)? The pterygoid has this long, buttressed lateral process; is it possible to tell if this process contacted the maxillla – or the jugal – and thereby excluded the ectopterygoid from the margin of the...

"this has since been corrected by Olori (2015), who noted the more typical separated condition."

Also by Vallin & Laurin (2004). A premaxilla-pterygoid contact (and lack of contact between the vomers) does not, to the best of my knowledge, occur anywhere at all.

Do you by any chance have any new thoughts on whether it really is the tabular or the supratemporal?

"It is noteworthy that on the right maxilla, the fifth position is followed by a vacant socket, whereas in the left maxilla, the fifth position is vacant but followed by the largest tooth of the row in the sixth position."

In Fig. 1 & 2, it is the left maxilla of OMNH 79031 where the fifth position bears a tooth slightly shorter than the fourth and is followed by an empty socket. Is that the sp...

Don't feel singled out. Much of the literature of the last few decades is wrong on this.

Goodrich (1930) may have been the first to give the name Tetrapoda a rank (that of superclass). He was not, however, the first to use the taxon name, which was already fairly popular. Most uses before 1930 are informal "tetrapods" (in various languages), but formal ones did occur (and I don't mean the homon...