When the first edition of the paq'batlh came out, two points would often come up when something from it was cited as evidence for or against a particular opinion. The first was that it had questionable "canon" status because it wasn't "purely" from Dr. Okrand, due to lines having been changed on the advice of KLI members.

I believe the concern wasn't that it was changed on advice; the concern was whether Okrand reviewed those changes or just accepted them. The editorial process wasn't transparent. It has since become clear that Okrand was paying close attention.

The second was that it was poetry (being something like the text of an opera) and not prose, and it wasn't always clear whether a grammatical construct or particular phrasing was standard or poetic.

That remains a true point, though it's not as black and white as some make it out sometimes. Poetry isn't completely ungrammatical and chaotic; it just sometimes uses otherwise ungrammatical or at least uncommon grammar for the sake of art. It's fine to point to something in paq'batlh as evidence for a particular grammatical claim, but if that's the only evidence it should be accompanied by the caveat that it's poetry and might conceivably be nonstandard.

I think neither has really changed with the 2ed.

I think the thing that has changed is that you've shown us the process that Okrand is using to revise it, and we can see that he is considering it very carefully.

I know that the original edition of the paq'batlh was revised during two qep'a' based on comments from members of the KLI. I don't know whether the contribution was evenly distributed or heavily weighted towards one or a few people. (Maybe someone who took part can comment on this.) But for the 2nd edition, I have definitely had much more input into the Klingon text than anyone other than Dr. Okrand. Maybe in some people's minds that makes its "canon" status more questionable.

I, for one, don't. It was never the editor; it was whether Okrand knowingly accepted the grammatical implications of his text as edited by someone else. That's not to say I consider him incapable of overlooking an error or grammatical consequence introduced by someone else, just that it's as "canonical" as anything else.

If anyone wants him to clarify anything, it would be really helpful if you do the background research for him first.

It often happens that someone asking him for a clarification asks their question in a way that suggests an answer. Presenting the whole picture as you do is the best approach to get an informed answer.

-- 
SuStel
http://trimboli.name