Not having much in the way of original primary source info, (I love to read what's posted here in that regard), but having read some of the secondary material over the years, I want to outline an alternative devil's advocate point of view, on the re-examination (revision?) of the air war. Take F-86/MiG kill ratio.
The seeds of doubt on F-86 losses were planted by changing totals of air combat losses totals of Sabers, 58, 78, 103? 78 is by far the most often quoted. 103 is supposedly from the AF's study Saber Measures (Charlie) which I admit I've never actually read.
Anyway now there's KORWALD. Hand counting I get numbers not too different from yours. I counted "loss" by the USAAF WWII criterion "failure to make a wheels down landing at a friendly base" and got 70 F-86's. By way of trivia it makes 49-1272 lost twice: bellied, later shot down. Adding in all ambiguous cases ("enemy fire", "failed to return") is another 10. So that's 80 corroborating the common historical total if that's all we count.
Damaged "loss" in KORWALD? One method is to add those on top, I count 34. But there's two issues. First some were clearly not write-offs as they appear more than once (damaged once, lost later), or in photo's with moderate damage. And 49-1272 is a survivor even today (damaged 12/4/51, on display in Fresno CA). On the other side of the ledger I note in Joe Baugher's database of serial numbers 16 F-86's "lost to enemy action" without date and not in Korwald. Some are known cases (49-1281 Eagleston's a/c in "Casey Jones" incident, 49-1334 taken out in Po-2 raid frequently published photo, 50-0666 is a MiG damage write off pictured in Davis "4th Fighter Wing") but mostly mysterious (to me). Anyway it's not clear how many would fairly be counted "lost". An interesting research topic unless someone knows a source already that deals with this in detail.
Second issue on "damaged" is apples and apples vs. "UAF" losses which are stated only as totals (and not incl. NKAF at all) as far as I've seen. Given the high rate of fire and low per round lethality of F-86 armament many hundreds more MiG's must have been hit for 500-600 to have been shot down. If we added all 34 (or 50) F-86's wouldn't we have to add a bunch of MiG's?
Mis-reporting of cause of loss. This one is harder than damage. But here's my devil's advocate position for debate. I think each case has to be looked at separately with the burden of proof on those who change the attribution from what's in the loss records. An example of a loss I've seen re-attributed, Mir Aviatsii article etc.:
F-84 51-636 Sietzinger 11/27/51 Korwald "strafing hit boxcars", matches date/type of a Pepeleyev claim. But locations don't match (Chinanpo US, "Sensen" Russian, meaning Sunchun; 70+miles apart) and this incident was further investigated, though not conclusively, as friendly fire (F-84's came head on at each other strafing, no enemy a/c reported). Unlikely to have been Pepeleyev's target.
A large topic for research (maybe not even possible at this point) to track down the dozens or hundreds of incidents, but each one is interesting I find. Anyway my point is matching losses to Russian claims same date is only an indication of possibility.
The escalation of F-86 AAA losses toward the end of the war, sometimes noted with suspicion in Russian writings, has a straightforward explanation. Many from 8th and 18 Fighter Bomber Gp's. More F-86's were lost to AAA once they began to be risked on air-grd, from 4th Ftr's strikes at target of opportunity after sweeps starting spring 52, and much more when FB units converted to F-86F's by '53.
Kill claim support ratio: Almost all AF's overclaim success in air combat (RN claims in Falklands a-a, not grd-a, were almost right on the money) but not all by the same ratio. It seems to depend on nature of the combat (hi or lo, furball or 2 on 2, aam's exploding or not) and social/political etc factors. The Soviets were on the high end of overclaim in two previous wars (Nomonhan 1939, the world overclaim championship v. the Japanese, and the GPW). Given that history and the difficult conditions of Korea: hi alt furballs, bad gun cameras, poor visibility and stability of the MiG (as Yeager described) 10% of claims actual kills (strictly UN records v. their claims) is not unbelievable. Anyway my idea is one side's claims don't by themselves invalidate the other side's case by case, secret-at-the-time loss records (as opposed to possibly propagandistic public totals) without more proof, or obvious inconsistency in the loss records.
So in summary subject to further research (and just being proved wrong) the F-86/MiG ratio kill-kill not kill-(kill+damage) could be estimated at around 6, say conservatively 500 kills vs. 80>90 losses (not so conservative maybe, but that's the debate). Worse than the famous original figures but better than the Saber Measures (Charlie) estimate.