in case, did you read all the other sources I mentioned as well, Gourgaud is judging of course like a Boney fan boy, at this time in October 1806 there was none of it, Robert Ouvrard, by all means a man who is not unsympathetic with Boney, comes to a complete different assessment - he clearly speaks about a scapegoat not without any reasons.

In case there would have been such an indignation in the army against the Prince de Ponto Corvo, why did he continue to lead with success after Auerstedt? Why wasn't there a collective refusal of the army to serve under such a "traitor"?

Boney had good reasons to trust Bernadotte and employ him in key matters, because due to fulfilling the strict order of Boney himself the double victory of Auerstedt and Jena gained much more operational benefit - than a Bernadotte following behind 3e corps achieving nothing.