I do not think we will ever get a consensus of opinion on the subject (you say potato, I say Solanum tuberosum...), as it appears there will be as many definitions of "matching", "original" and "correct" as there are Lee-Enfield collectors. There will always be individuals who like the idea of the rifle with all "original" parts from the factory (good job proving that with so many spares on ebay...), and those do define original as "the state the rifle was in when it left service", and many shades inbetween. I have fallen into the former category once or twice (remember the 1941 Long Branch I restored? Then again, I had a very good reason). I now follow Claven2's discussion, remembering that these rifles would go through replacement of damaged parts and refurbishments as part of service life, and this is part and parcel of the history of the rifle, so why should I bugger with it or think it is less valuable to me because it saw some action and got some scrapes? When you think about it, the L42A1 didn't originally leave the factory as an L42A1, and a Savage No.4T sure as heck didn't leave Savage in that shape. My go-to shooting Lee-Enfield is a 1944 BSA, FTRed in 1949, with matching receiver, bolt, forend and magazine from the time of the FTR, and I love that rifle. The 1941 Fazakerley No.4 Mk.1 I have been looking at (it did pass the head space check with a 0.638" long #3 bolt head - phew!) appears to be all original, except for the later variation upper band with the welded on lugs, the Mk.II rear sight and the Mk.II cocking piece, but I will never be sure that other parts have not been swapped out, and I will never be able to prove anything either way, so I do not worry about it.

Now I have finished rambling, I will go and finish waking up and have a cup of tea.