Are the books of Hadith sciences [written] according to the methodology of the early scholars?

Ancient Hadith sciences books, such as Al-Hakim's "Ma'rifat Ulum al-Hadith" (Knowledge of Hadith Sciences), Al-Ramahurmuzi's "Al-Muhaddith al-Fasil" (The Discriminating Hadith Scholar), Al-Khalili's "Al-Irshad" (Guidance), and Al-Baghdadi's "Al-Kifayah fi Ilm al-Riwayah" (Sufficiency in the Science of Narration), followed the methodology of the early scholars (mutaqaddimin). However, Al-Baghdadi's book was influenced by some non-Hadith scholars' methodologies in a few issues, such as the classification of reports into mutawatir (mass-transmitted) and ahad (single-chain). As for the books of the later scholars (muta'akhkhirin), they generally follow the methodology of the later scholars. The most important points of difference between the two methodologies are the Hadith Hasan (good Hadith), the addition by a trustworthy narrator (ziyadah al-thiqah), and strengthening through corroborating evidence (shawahid) and follow-ups (mutaba'at). One can consult Hassan Al-Sa'eedi's dissertation: "Al-Manhaj al-Naqdi inda al-Mutaqaddimin min al-Muhaddithin wa Athar Tabayun al-Manhaj" (The Critical Methodology of the Early Hadith Scholars and the Impact of Methodological Divergence).