During the 2000s, I spent a lot of time visiting museums, libraries and medical establishments in the USA reading old books that had not yet been copied and released via the Google project.
What I noticed was that the practitioners who used Boenninghausens Therapeutic Pocket book as a guide to the choice of medicines, were having far more consistent results in their clinic than others that used keynotes or some self determined system of remedy matching. I also noted that the practitioners who used the Therapeutic Pocket book, had a much better grasp of the Hahnemannian approach to treating sickness and disease. The I.H.M. have copies of some of the teachers in the schools TPBs and see the additions and corrections made on the pages.
When Kent came along and combined several repertories into one giant reference work, he lost the methodology that was inherent is the usage of the individual repertories, and thus rendered the new work fairly useless as a repertorial work. Not only that, Kent introduced a Quasi medical/spiritual approach to case taking than negated a lot of the instructions by Hahnemann in how to take a case.
A sad day for homoeopathy.