Cathey, I have to say that I have always admired the format and detail you use in describing the swords in your collection, which is important as you and Rex are among the most discerning collectors I have known in the lifetime I've done this. That said, your examples are outstanding exemplars of their forms both in type as well as historic connections.
If you guys ever publish this, I will be first in line!!!
With classification and typology, authors such as Oakeshott and Mazansky who have provided scheduled typology charts which serve well as basic denominators in discussing them and describing them. However as we know, the variations and exceptions are what add dimension to the type as a whole. I think that use of the numbered form from these charts as a basis, with qualification added is best.
It is a matter of preference, but with the established form noted in these well known references, even though not hard line match, it shows the scope of the form in known variation, in my opinion.
The Visser volume I think is outstanding, and while not a 'sword' reference per se', the examples of the types shown, markings as noted and other details often offer clues which may apply to identification of other examples by association. The Netherlands were a key entrepot for arms in these times, and influences in many forms of many countries filtered through there.