Nope Sunfish. AC43... was intended for major alterations in the USA.
When that minor/major terminology was introduced into the regs here they were adamant that the US interpretation would apply. I've been out of it for a few years but I understand that they, without changing the regs or the dictionary meaning of words, have moved to the different EASA definitions - perhaps some-one could expand on that point ... i.e. more significant mods could be classified as minor. So a minor mod could be quite substantial and so require some serious engineering hence an appropriate process needs to be followed. That would leave room for a lesser category of mod, perhaps call it trivial which CASA should take little interest in altogether.
In the USA, the FAA takes an interest in major mods. As for minors, the only control is to specify who can approve minor mods (and that would be a LAME type) and the usual system of audits.
So Sunfish, I disagree with what you believe to be the heart of the problem.
As for conflict in approved data - that's why we need the engineering types in industry to sort stuff out.