Steven,

Your statement here concerns me very much.

"Sources and IDs vary. Preferences vary."

Firstly, "Sources and ID's vary".

In this case, No they don't.

The fundamental standardised source is collated within the WDS (Washington Double Star) Catalogue. There is no other data available that is not either second-hand, third-hand or later. All positional values and ID's are simply standardised - being already fixed in rigid terms of name, position and terminology. These have been determined by the IAU Commission 26 for Double Stars - by international decree - and are made to avail us of the problem of misunderstandings or wrong identification.

If you want to be pedantic, all astronomical works that are either as written or as observed and recorded, MUST always be properly re-sourced and acknowledged.

Whilst you are correct stating that "Preferences vary" - based on some criteria the observers believe may or may not benefit other observers, there is no getting away with sticking to standard sources. If you have differences, you must say why.

Again though I may seem very harsh in my opinions here, there is good reason for it. Unless amateur astronomers are willing to comply to reasonable standards concerning visual observations and suitable observing lists based on the best current data - the practice of observational astronomy will be no better than common here-say. Frankly, there is already too many distortions and errors in many of the commonly used references - where the observer has to sift through the chaff to find the truth.

Sorry. For double stars the current standard is based on the Washington Double Star Catalogue. There just are no other "standards".

Note: I would be very interested about your original source data.