To say that this is controversial is quite an understatement!!. It will throw quite a few family trees into a spin. However, I would be very careful about using one particular reference in order to delineate a possible line of descent, no matter how authoritative it might be. Despite what it might say, I would very carefully look into this and study as many sources as you possibly can. The main problem I have with Baildon's article is the age...nearly 100 years and given that much more study has been done on these pedigrees since then.
Another problem is that Fowler's Visitation pedigrees are a bit vague and I wouldn't rely on them for an authoritative definition of any of the pedigrees it contains. You could only use it as general source. Baildon would have to have some very definitive sources to pin down these trees.
Just looking at your points...the Christopher of "Hollin Hall" you mentioned is two generations older than Tom and Kathy's boy, as he would be in the generation of Tom's father, Arthur...if William is Constantine's younger brother as William would be Arthur's uncle.
The note from Brooke's M8, in Fowler, makes no mention of who the "Christopher Maude married to Edith Wilkinson" is a son of. I can send you Fowler's Visitation if you like. The relevant page is page 200 (also, see page 56)
Can you send me a copy of the Paley Baildon article?? I would like to have a good read of it, but it will be quite awhile till I can fully study it as I'll be back at uni again very soon.