OK, I've tried this before, but let's have another go.
The Admiralty tested claims for U-boat kills very thoroughly ... including using Enigma decrypts to identify boats attacked and to sort damaged from sunk. This was important for working out good methods to hit U-boats, and to make awards.
In the Beaufighter thread it is noted that Braham claimed a 'damaged', there was only one other claim that night, and the Luftwaffe lost two aircraft ...
In his first book R.V. Jones, recounting his life as Science Advisor to the Air Ministry tells of challenging an intelligence officer debriefing combat pilots. Jones knew there was a large discrepancy between RAF claims and PR reports and actual Luftwaffe losses. The IO reported that these men have been risking their lives, I'm not going to downgrade their claims.
So to the point: has post-war analysis using Luftwaffe records been used to substantiate fighter pilot claims, or has it all been too 'messy'?
My particular interest is in the Big Wing claims, which even during the BoB were regarded as outlandish by those with access to Ultra, and during the 'rhubarbs' over France in 1941/2, where it is known RAF claims were pleasingly high on days the Luftwaffe lost nothing, and where blue-on-blue combats were not uncommon (Bader may have been shot down by his own side).
So any analysis of 'ace' clams? Any adjustment of tallies? Any 'aces' with suspicious profiles (e.g. Pierre Clostermann claiming a fierce combat when the dope patches were still intact)?