[Aiwendil]

For option 3 I see no real reason why we have to remove Andvír. Since our rules say we need a reason to reject something, I don't thing that is a good possiblity.

And we could only have a reason if we decided that Androg's having a son contradicts the Narn. At one time I thought this was the case, but I think you've made a good argument that the dates, ages, and so forth can be made to cohere. So I agree that 3 is probably not the right way to go.

I see your doubts about option 2. When text A postdates the middle of the Narn, which is likely, then we can only change the sentence if it is a an workable palned change of the naritive. And if we think it is a change that is not absoultly necessary it would be a stylistic change, that is not wanted.

That leaves us with the question of whether or not A&D represents a 'projected change' from the story of Androg's death in the Narn. You've correctly pointed out that the statement about Androg's survival is technically true in the Narn. But what do you think of the concern I expressed earlier concerning the intended meaning? To repeat myself:

On Findegil's interpration, while this statement is completely true, the clause 'and alone survived the battle on the summit of Amon Rûdh' would appear to be a bit of a non sequitur. The rest of the sentence is concerned with establishing the credentials of Dirhavel's sources. It is mentioned that Androg is Andvir's father because this explains how Andvir knew details of the story. But why then mention that Androg survived the battle? If, as in the Narn, he died immediately after it, then this statement cannot have any relevance to Andvir's knowledge. On the other hand, if we interpret this last statement to mean that Androg lived a for a significant length of time after the battle, and presumably had communication with Andvir during that time, then it is quite relevant.

I would add that Christopher Tolkien (and indeed each of us) originally read the statement as asserting not just that Androg survived the fighting but that he was not mortally wounded there at all - so this may very well have been what Tolkien meant.

So I think I am for either option 1 or 2, with the above concern being issue that the decision is depends upon. I suppose option 2 may in fact be the way to go if we consider that the risk of including an invalid/contradictory statement outweighs the risk of excluding valid one.