Absolutely. My take on this is they were much more focused on getting guns back in service than speculating on why they were in the condition received. I'm sure some guy working away in the armory thought about why a gun was still loaded and wondered if the guy carrying it got off any shots at all before possibly becoming a casualty.I know Craig Barry very well & have discussed this very topic with him. The raw number of muskets recovered from battlefields & how many were refurbished is documented. The armorers who refurbished dropped muskets did not file a report on the number of muskets that were loaded or the number of rounds loaded. There was no form with that data point printed on it to report with.
In the absence of a paper trail, all numbers are anecdotal. In the posting you have cited, Barry & Bilby were aware of the report cited. The problem they had with it was the total lack of any paper trail to support it. Nobody knows what the 27,000 musket breakdown was based on. Maybe it was from hard data, maybe it was an educated estimate, nobody knows. If there was a regulation stating that armorers report on how many of the muskets they found were loaded & how many loads, we would have thousands of those reports. If an official ordered an accounting of the number of loaded muskets found, there would be a paper trail. As we know, no such documents exist. Anybody who finds a data stream to support the oft cited 27,000 claim will trumpet it to the heavens, but nobody has found it yet.
I have absolutely no intention on entering into the endless speculation that exists on this topic. All I know is that without a regulation requiring an accounting, a record of that data simply doesn't exist. That is the Army way.