No it's not just you, it's me too.
glad to not be alone.
I have not read Nick Vaux's book, but I had a mail ecchange with him for an online article I wrote back in time, and he was a first rate chap.
Book on SAS are a mixed bag, some, I have been told, are good, some are fiction. When dealing with special forces there is always an element of trust you have to grant to the author, because a lot of what he is writing is not readily available. On the other hand there are two issues:
one, if he is a reliable author, why he is talking about classified stuff? Especially if he is a former operator... either he has been cleared (okay good source) or he is making it up... including his credentials (see the discussions on McNab, or on Captain Shelby Stanton for another army and another war).
two, parochial views. Very often there is a massive bias toward the 'my unit is the best' approach. every error is made by the big wigs, the conventionals, or someone else... I found few authors capable to resist the hagiography approach when dealing with special units. Blowing accomplishments out of proportion and always telling us that if given free rein the specials would have done even better.
For my thesis I have done plenty of research on MACV SOG in Laos. Even after 40 years the official sources (there is a lot og good stuff on it in MACV yearly command histories) are heavily redacted. Especially on detail like insertion method and contacts' detail. On the other hand the official material if a treasure trove on the effort to make a picture of enemy movements in Laos and to improve interdiction operations. On the other hand, popular histories, including the ones written by former members, are short on the big picture (and often biased), and rich on details... that are redacted on the official documents. That was 67-73, think about 1982...