Looking at the pictures, I don't understand how you're counting things. For example, I would count first two pictures as 5/7/5 and the third as either 5/5/4 or 6/6/4, depending on whether you count the raised portion where the sheets join as a corrugation, but I wouldn't count the bottom, because you haven't counted the top or the bottom (the frame) on any of the doors. Personally, I think the corrugations should be counted independently of the frame and the location of the panel connections, whether that is on the "flat" or raised in a manner that resembles a corrugation. In other words, the door frame and the joint forms the frame around the corrugations that are actually counted.
Why? Well, identifying whether the joint is raised or not clarifies things better than counting the joints only when raised. For example, in picture 2 I count 5/7/5. In picture 3 I count 5/5/4 with raised joints. This maintains consistency because we are then counting corrugations between the frame and joint. Otherwise do you count the raised joining panel as part of the group of corrugations above it, or below it? It could be a 6/6/4, or a 5/6/5. But it's not the same as a 5/6/5 door with flat joints.
Also, I've seen the word "interim" used for things like this (and the "interim" Improved Dreadnaught End). I'm not a fan of this nomenclature. For the Improved Dreadnaught End it's just plain wrong, that was a trademarked name and no "interim" applies. To me, "interim" implies a temporary thing while the proper thing is prepared or ready (such as an interim manager, while the company goes through the process of hiring a permanent one). But in the case of freight car doors and ends, they were always modifying and improving their products. So each one would either be "interim" or none.
We certainly need to describe the differences between the doors since there are so many variations, and in many cases they probably carried the same trade name (although I haven't looked extensively at ads yet to see what, if any, different terminology they used. Where possible, I would think that the year of introduction would be the best identifier.
My thoughts anyway. I appreciate the effort and would love to see how this evolves with input from the group. Thanks.
Modeling the New Haven Railroad 1946-1954