I was further interested by your parenthetic ‘unlike the UK’, because in my adopted country of Wales the alphabet is different and (say) ‘dd’ is a letter in its own right. I can think of very few Welsh words used in English, but something like EISTEDDFOD would be (10) in an English puzzle and (9) in a Welsh one (with ‘dd’ entered in a single square). So not a straightforward issue, but I guess the convention is that any word translated (or transliterated) into English will use only characters from the English alphabet (possibly with accents or other diacritics), and that these are the letters (with any diacritics dropped) used for crosswording purposes.

I didn’t make a point of CONNE[d] versus CONNÉ.
The pronunciation is indeed not important in Crosswordland [and my remark on that was solely addressed to tupu].
Just like you, I think that the ‘accent aigu’ is something to think about.
I come from a country in which – under the influence of France and unlike in the UK – the É is part of the language.
Personally, I consider É as a character different from E.
I know and understand that, in Crosswordland we don’t look at punctuation marks, apostrophes and accents etc., but my background does not always feel comfortable about how we treat the latter.
Anyway, soit.

With regard to the indication of the letters CONNE in CLOISONNÉ (#16), the difference in pronunciation is surely not an issue although the accent is perhaps more arguable. The convention is that these are simply ignored in the grid and in wordplay (although occasionally a clue will indicate an accented letter), which is fine except that it doesn’t seem quite right to me if a checked letter requires an accent in its across answer but not its down answer or vice versa (as in CLOISONNÉ vs CORVETTE here). And just occasionally, accents are a critical part of a puzzle – at least one ‘Ascot Gold Cup’ winner (for the best Listener puzzle of the year) made brilliant use of them (I won’t say which in case anyone reading this should stumble across it one day).

ChrisUnemployed (#34), any use of Google or other references will be during blog-writing. The solving time refers to the point at which I feel I can do more on the grid (without references). If I have to correct anything subsequently (e.g. had I guessed ‘Nalier’ instead of LANIER at 10ac), I indicate these mistakes after giving the solving time. I hope that clears things up, and assure you that I haven’t yet ventured into blood doping. Watching Vinokourov “win” Stage 13 of this year’s Tour de France left a somewhat sour taste.

but the puzzle only took you 12 minutes, so does ‘early on’ really apply?

Your timings, as u admit using scientific assistance (ie Google) are as fraudulent as http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alexandre_Vinokourov in the 2007 Tour.

Anyone who ever takes a look at my edits to wp might notice a vague correspondence to topics raised in guardian puzzle clues, although the timing is a bit off since I rarely do puzzles on the day I print them.

I actually think that level 3 (using the net) adds an extra layer of enjoyment – the “distraction” of reading entire wp (and other) articles on interesting topics. I know a lot more about cricket, for instance, than I did a year ago. I also think I memorized a list of world war two aeroplanes somewhere along the way.

But in the end, I think whatever aids one is comfortable with are fine. If puzzles get too easy, restrict oneself. If they get too hard, loosen up a bit. I usually try to get as much as I can in working “alone”, and then add research to chase the harder clues. Yesterday’s Prize puzzle had me staring at a blank sheet for a really long time, and the first clue I finally got was a term I remember learning when researching some other clue in the past.

Just don’t brag about solving at a more difficult level than one really uses, that would be rude

In fact, I missed almost the entire SW corner, with only the obvious 24 and 18 and the end of 4 intruding on its “perfect” unmarred state.

So, some little bits of fun, but a tough row to hoe. Thanks for the explanations, rightback, to Pasquale, since it’s always good to face a real stumper once in a while.