I’m not having a go at those that want to work out the fate of every single vessel (or unit or tank or aircraft) but it’s always struck me as a restrictive thing to do as a GM. Personally I would rather not have the fate of every single USN vessel (or whatever) decided because by keeping the fate of some of them vague it gives you a tool as a GM to introduce one if necessary. Listing out the fate of everything runs the risk of a player saying “well that’s wrong because X was sunk in 1998 according to the expanded Canon” and causing disruption in the game as the GM explains what parts of Canon and expanded Canon they use.
In my opinion Canon provides a framework for a GM's campaign and almost every GM will start diverging from Canon the moment they start running their campaign, often as a result of PCs actions. For example if you run Black Madonnna as presented you need to ensure that certain things occur if you want to stay true to the Canon presented in White Eagle (which is set about a year later) and that might actually be contrary to what your PCs are actually doing. What happens to Canon if the PCs try to kill General Julian Filipowitz before he becomes King Julian of Silesia? Do you fudge things as a GM or force the players to do something else? The vast majority of GMs will simply accept the PCs actions and then adapt their campaign accordingly and therefore diverge from Canon in the process.
Lastly it's also worth noting that discrepancies in OOBs and ship lists might well occur anyway due to inaccuracies in reporting. No one apart from a GM with a God like view of the world is going to know the fate of every single ship or unit or whatever so why tie yourself as a GM to something that has been "expanded from existing Canon". Retaining flexibility as a GM seems to be a much better idea to me.
But that's just my opinion so ignore me if you disagree!
