It seems to me, as an observer of this thread, that you're not listening/trusting the good intentions of other helpful users who are trying help you and everyone understand the situation. These are just other users trying to be helpful. We're all on the same team.
As a reader & fan of the ASV since 1961, I don't believe that there is any significant variation between publishers of the ASV in the text.
This, IMHO, is not the best use of translation. Either checking the original language text or making use of a good scholarly contemporary translation are two better choices. You are, of course, free to prefer the ASV since it's what you're used to.
But I myself don't know of a better scholar-committee-made translation to use when having a debate as a neutral source in English. Since the ASV seems to have followed the philosophy of rather wooden literalism & even studied ambiguity (when the original is ambiguous), it IMHO, is the best English translation still to use when checking a doctrinal claim made on a proof text.
True, perhaps. But they were also ignorant of a lot, including new text discoveries, translation theory, etc.
Also, it appears to me that when the English RV & its American variant, the ASV, were produced, Biblical scholars (on average) knew Greek a whole lot better than today
Reality is there's no commercial value for spending tremendous work on updating an ASV text to align with the published version you're familiar with. So, if you care about the text, email in errors you find. Nothing will change otherwise.
But I don't accept the responsibility of correcting the ASV free for Accordance.
And, no, errors in the text are not bugs.