HP report confused

Hi, finally got a copy of the HP report from my home visit and the DWP award letter arrived confirming I am getting the same amount, but some of the descriptors have been changed and my points overall are lower.

Firstly, I am unclear in places who is saying what on the medical report please could you debunk some acronyms? what is:
AR1, CQ, HOC, IO, MSK?
Secondly, I am unclear where/who some of the comments that appear in the justifications for descriptor box are coming from. Are they from the HP or the DWP decision maker? For example, 8.reading and writing, box b. is ticked saying needs an aid or appliance other than spectacles, but I am awarded zero points for this and then in the justifications box the first para says: The AR1 reports no change from CQ which reports can no longer reada dn process complex information dure to brain fog etc then a second paragraph states The evidence does not support a functional restriction the IO dows no impairment with cognition and memory and reported completing the CQ herself (the original questionnaire was filled in with my partner in consultation with me and the review discussed only the descriptors I was awarded points for at tribuna and I explained I was using boice recognition software and that it had taken over two weeks on and off when able to complete) The SOH shows she reported being able to use the internet to play talking dramas. therefore it is likely she can read and understand basic and complex written information unaided and to an acceptable standard.

Why was the b. box ticked and then I was awarded nothing and who is making these comments? The HP or someone else. And since when did naviagting the BBC iplayer app equate to complex reading tasks???
Thirdly, there are some pages labelled Supplementary advice note (change of advice) PA6 which appear to be from a second HP do they shed any light on the conflicting points of view at times in the PA4 V3?

Lastly, I am wondering about asking for a MR as I am 1 point short of higher rate for care and several things I received points for at tribunal have been negated whilst others have been scored, but am not prepared to go to tribunal again as it made me so ill.
Firstly, what is the liklihood of a MR resulting in a lowering of rates? Because I am unwilling to go to tribunal again if there is more than a small chance of my rates being lowered I won't ask for an MR.

However, I have never believed I have been scored accurately, if you put both tribunal award and this one together you might get closer to the facts and I more than anything feel angry about the injustice of it all. How can the tribunal decide I score one point for using ipad reminders and a dosset box to help me remember to take my medication, but the latest award negate this despite the HP reporting how the alarm went off whilst she was there etc, she did not ask me why I used it and my memory problems were never addressed in the interview, no test of memory or questioning about it and yet even yesterday because I did not immediately take my medication when the alarm went off at 11am, 4 hrs later when it went off for the next dose I discovered the 11am dose still in the box because I had forgotten!
The tribunal awarded points for that and for complex budgeting and for finding a route but these were negated this time.
Plus there is the confusing thing of how 8.reading is scored, plus 4.washing and bathing the HP report ticks d.Needs assistance to be able to washair or body below waist but the PA6 ticks e. needs assistance getting out of the bath.
Then there is the old social engagement chestnut where despite the HP reporting the interview was conducted with me lying down, spekaing slowly, obviously fatigued and eyes closed for much of the time she concludes that as I don't have a mental health problem, despite reporting how infrequently I am ever able to engage with friends etc due to increase in symptoms, that I score no points as if mental health is the only reason someone can argue that their social life is zero. This one always makes me upset because someone else can wash you, cook your meals etc but they can not have a friendship for you or a social life!
So I guess I'm asking whether any of these contradictions are worth me spending any more energy on, do I have a case for an MR? The inteview was recorded legally so I can also substantiate the fact that i was not questioned about brain fog or memory and the time spent on the descriptors was minimal because it w as taking so long for me to answer all the questions on medical history etc that there was very little time, plus by then I was nearly dead, to spend on the details of my ability to carry out daily tasks. I know you can't tell me what to do, but I want to be able to make an informed decision about proceeding or abandoning. thanks

Thank you. Is there any harm in writing saying you don't agree with the descriptors and why, but don't want to ask for MR because you have no faith in the process? I hate the feeling that by saying nothing it is as if I agree with their assumptions and assessment of my health, but I can not take the risk of losing or lowering my award and my whole family let alone me could not stand to appeal even on paper, the last 4.5 months has at time brought me closer to suicide than the 6 years of living in hell with m.e/cfs. I loathe the injustice, but it's not fair in my little girl and partner to put them through more of me being driven insane by the system. I m just wondering if asserting my POV through a letter can in anyway harm my current position?

PS what does SOH stand for?