'Child later had cause to reconsider his attitude.'
That is 100% incorrect. As Richie rightly says 'At the end of ESPB in the later numbers, 280-305, he became weary of dealing with ballads he could not corroborate as traditional from more than one source.' Read Vol 5 p182, Jim. I've pointed this out to you before. Read the notes to 301, 291 and countless others. Hustvedt certainly read some of Child's correspondence but he couldn't have read Child's headnotes to have made this silly statement. If this doesn't convince you, try reading some of Mary Ellen Brown's bang up-to-date books on Child's correspondences with his contemporaries.

I have corresponded with Ian on this matter on many occasions and he won't come out strongly on either side currently.

Nobody is arguing with 'All the early anthologists tampered with the songs.' The difference of opinion is to what extent they tampered.