Excellent posts jadrake and resulted in good hunting.
I am up at 2.49 am for a hot drink with after effects of flu, I cough cough cough and cannot sleep. One tiny comment is to label your scans a, b c or 1. 2. 3. etc. and maybe with initial so J a. Jb. J 1. J2. This means that ones can comment specifically with the easy reference and also that the scans do not have similar headings to others.
I suggest that you look in detail at any HT flaws as small differences in the break can make them ST. For this I like to get them scanned and look at high magnification on computer. Shades are as always a problem. You seem to have mint copies so it should be easier to get more accurate (less faded) colour renditions.
I will look up that area (under the 2 join). You notice that the baskets vary greatly in thickness of the lines and hence clarity of design. The fuzzy ones are common and they do tend to join in various non-flaw recognised areas.
For PE 3 the blob vs the district line. I tend to favour the distinct line as a true PE3. However, I think it is a factor involving the different inking of the plates. I will also try and dig out where on the plates the flaws have been identified (for all flaws).
I do have the INFLA Berlin book on the basket flaws but it is in German and I need to painfully translate this. There is a good chunk on PE8 and maybe I can start with this to clear up the area (when are three lines actually three)?
Back to bed, oh maybe not---dogs disturbed by a damn mouse that cat brought in!!
John Figure 1. Selected PE 3 showing differences in flaw.
John