Okay, and here's my personal gripe: Transit times.
What's the point in investing a great deal of effort into a scientifically accurate simulation/description of a realistic star system, only to laugh at all the data and then use that overly simplified travel time diagram from DS&JS? The one that treats all stars as main sequence stars no matter what?
There's several reasons. To begin with:
1) A transit time calculation is provided in the system generation rules so you can get from Point A to Point B in the system, for any system.
2) Stars only spend about 10% of their lives off the main sequence, not counting the white dwarf phase. Thus, about 10% of the stellar population at any time is non-main sequence stars. The "simplified" DropShips & JumpShips / Strategic Operations recharge and transit rules thus address about 90% of the stars in the universe.
3) A suggestion was made to address non-main sequence stars in Strategic Operations' reprint of the transit / recharge rules. However, it was soon realized that separate recharge and transit tables would be required for each other stellar type (VI, IV, III, II, Ia, Ib), thus adding 12 new tables to address about 10% of the stellar population while 2 tables covered 90%. So, that didn't happen in Strategic Operations.
4) FASA writers were wild about using non-main sequence stars. (Your example of Betelgeuse was on my mind when I made the pitch for the expansion in StratOps, and I deliberately used it in the system generation rules for the same reason.) The House Sourcebooks run about 40-50% non-main sequence stars. Because of FanPro / CGL standing orders for reprinting star systems, all those would have to be retconned to use the hypothetical new Strategic Operations' recharge and transit rules. So, the new transit and recharge tables weren't added to Strategic Operations.
5) For the past 4 years, CGL has seen some informal effort to ensure all new habitable star systems described in BT are main sequence stars.
As a result, the system generation rules for IntOps conclude the "Hot, Hot, Hot" system option (pg20 of the .pdf) by being straightforward and giving you the blunt truth: BT is sticking to the Strategic Operations' transit and recharge rules. (Here, you've learned why: there was no room in Strategic Operations for the necessary changes, and the required retcon was too big.) The rest of the document gives you realistic warnings on why making non-main sequence star systems has some difficulties and thus should be avoided.
The document skips around this by being semi-honest and featuring only (V)-subclass stars. But really, what I would dearly love to see is going full monty and taking the actual size of the sun into consideration.
The system transit rules and JumpShip recharge rules are located in Strategic Operations, not Interstellar Operations. If you can convince Herb to errata 6 new transit tables and 6 new recharge tables into Strategic Operations, and also to retcon all published non-main sequence stars to conform to the new rules, then I'll be happy to cook up the errata for Strategic Operations.
On another topic, this issue should've been raised here first rather than posed as an errata:
Factual error: The Oort Cloud is not a belt, and it's even highly arguable whether it can be described as asteroids. And it definitely doesn't occupy an orbital slot - its very nature is being a cloud of matter outside of the accretion disk and outside of the orbits. In a sense, it's not even part of the system anymore.
The inner Oort Cloud is hypothesized to be donut-shaped - a belt. Furthermore, as soon as I left out provisions for including the Oort cloud, another player would ask how to make it. Thus, the compromise was to address the (inner) Oort Cloud as an "asteroid" belt and note in the text that the "asteroids" might, in fact, be "icy outer system" objects.