[Borek]

  (1) You copied and pasted a 1996 "unauthenticated" something and a 1993 publication
        by Blackwell publications that calls itself a "guide" and refers to the IUPAC rules and
        states that E/Z has largely replaced cis / trans.  I'm not arguing with that.

Quote comes from the very Blackwell publication, "unauthenthicated" probably refers just to the legal status of the document (which is not something I selected randomly, it is linked to from the IUPAC site itself).

P-92.1.2 states that CIP rules are used to prioritize a,b,c,d

That would be a game changer. Sadly, I have no access to the book, and the only thing I can check is the IUPAC Provisional recommendations which says nothing about using CIP for cis/trans (to make things more difficult it also uses different, and occasionally erroneous, numeration of subpoints).

IUPAC isn't always consistent

is a thing I can easily agree on.

[MNIO]

I go back to my last point.  There is world full of people currently using cis/trans for double bonds with 3 and 4 ligands.  Clearly you can't argue with that right?  And they are prioritizing the groups when determining cis/trans.  Non-arguable.  And clearly even IUPAC is using cis and trans for 3 ligands.  I showed you an image right from their organic chemistry nomenclature rules. 

So.... clearly, I'm not making this up am I?

[MNIO]

this is my last post on this topic.  it's been thoroughly argued.  From the IUPAC blue book 2013 page

and