When early scholars included specification and explanation within a broad concept of naskh, lists of abrogated verses became comparatively large. A narrower technical definition removes many of those entries from true abrogation.
Another difficulty is establishing chronology. Showing that two passages initially look different is not enough; one must establish which ruling came first, whether they genuinely conflict, and how supporting evidence is assessed. Claims about consensus can also require scrutiny.
Conclusion: different counts need not indicate competing views about the integrity of revelation. They often reflect differences in terminology and proof.