Robert McLune:
End in Sight:
Related to this, one major change I hope will be made is to insert a big "caveat emptor" disclaimer, or something like that: to emphasize the fact that the book is written by Dan Ingram, speaking from Dan Ingram's point of view, based on Dan Ingram's experience, and not as a disembodied voice pronouncing the truth, or anything else.
I can't say I agree that's needed, simply because it's already there. Daniel already goes pretty far to express that caveat, even to the extent of pointing out certain chapters that the reader may simply want to avoid.
One example of a thing that would benefit from a disclaimer, in my opinion, is:
MCTB, Concentration vs. Insight:
One of the factors that actually adds to the confusion is that the concentration state terminology (jhanas) is used in the original texts to describe both the progressively more sophisticated concentration states and also the progress of insight, with little delineation of which is which. This was solved to some degree a few hundred years later when the stages of the progress of insight were articulated in the canonical commentaries, but the original problem was not mentioned. It was only in the second half of the Twentieth Century that the problem was sorted out to some degree by the Burmese, and I will delineate the vipassana jhanas later.
This is all quite controversial, but it's stated as if there is no controversy at all (as if there were some definitive scholarly source that could be cited which would support this position).
This is the closest to a disclaimer that I can recall:
MCTB, Foreword and Warning:
This book is for those who really want to master the core teachings of the Buddha and who are willing to put in the time and effort required. It is also for those who are tired of having to decipher the code of modern and ancient dharma books, as it is designed to be honest, explicit, straightforward and rigorously technical. (...)
Like my own practice, this book is heavily influenced by the teachings of the late, great Mahasi Sayadaw, a Burmese meditation master and scholar in the Theravada Buddhist tradition, and by those in his lineage and outside it. There are numerous references to other excellent traditions as well, some Buddhist and some not. It is my sincere wish that all diligent students of meditation find something in this book that is of practical value to them.
The first paragraph makes it seem like MCTB is revealing The Way, whereas the second paragraph is down-to-earth. I'd say more of the latter and less of the former would be great.
However, in a similar vein -- and it may also achieve your real objective (which is, if it's what I think it is, a good objective) -- what I personally *would* have found useful would have been, more specific pointers back to the primary Buddhist literature. Through reading MCTB I have actually been motivated to go back and read the older stuff; Mahasi Sayadaw initially, but then back to Visuddhimagga, Vimuttimagga, and beyond.
I hope you'll read them without filtering them through the models that MCTB uses. (This is my point: it's easier to do this if MCTB flags the fact that it's one person's opinion, rather than an accurate representation of any particular sect or school of Buddhism. Models of new subjects, when first formed, tend to be recalcitrant to change, especially when they're detailed and comprehensive.) And this is independent of whether they are all actually are describing the same stuff or not.
I think MCTB has this power over some readers to a greater extent than normal books do, because MCTB attempts to be systematic, comprehensive, and exceedingly precise, whereas many popular books concerning Buddhism and meditation are not; these qualities hold a special power over certain kinds of people (stereotypically: scientists / engineeers / "rationalists"), especially when they've been deprived of them elsewhere, and so can be blinding (like walking through a dark corridor and suddenly finding oneself outside at midday), which is surely a detrimental thing.
Well I'm right in the sweetspot of your stereotype, and I'm as skeptical as f*ck about all of this stuff! *Too* skeptical, some on here would argue. So I don't see there being an unusually high risk to "my people".

For clarity, maybe I should add "geeks" to the stereotype. I didn't mean for the stereotype to center around the ability to be skeptical, but rather, around a fascination with ideas, reasoning, models, descriptions, complexity, practical instructions, etc. But there are a lot of people interested in this who aren't especially skeptical in general. And there are a lot of people not interested in these things who are.
Sometimes people swing by the DhO and post something like "I'm a beginner, I want to practice concentration, but I know I shouldn't get lost in the illusion of solidity, so how do I know when to switch to insight?" (I tend to assume they got enthusiastic about meditation only because MCTB presents meditation in a way amenable to "geeks", which is why they're beginners: they hadn't found another tradition or book that explained it in a way that suited them.)They want help with their meditation problem, but their meditation problem is
theoretical; apparently, they adopted MCTB's viewpoint concerning these things and are worried about issues that exist within that model. And yet, if they're beginners, all they have to go on is faith and confidence in what MCTB says...faith and confidence that the theoretical problem will be mirrored in their own experience, once they meditate for awhile.
(Not that it's a problem that they have faith and confidence in MCTB; the problem arises when they don't realize that they're operating on assumptions, and start trying to understand everything about meditation by filtering it through MCTB, or fail to consider other models that might suit their particular experience better in the future, or fail to try other modes of practice that don't make sense in the MCTB model (or use them according to how they would have to work if the MCTB model were true, which may not be the same as how they're intended to be used...).)
As a confession, I spent a whole lot of time not practicing
after I had a serious MCTB-styled practice going, because I figured there was nothing good that I would be able to obtain through further meditation. It took me a while to stop reading everything through the MCTB filter, and to reconsider whether I was simply being foolish and rash. It's not Dan's fault that I was wearing these strange blinders, of course; I'm the only one to blame. But I might not have had this problem, or had it to the same degree, if MCTB had some changes that interacted with my fascination with models and etc. in a better way.