I understand, and maybe you are married to that view with the books as they are (in which case, why the poll?), I’m just suggesting that core rules and character generation (at least the basics, thereof) would in almost every other game system out there be the the actual “core rules” or what would be expected to find in a “Player’s Handbook”. As such it seems to me that both this and CM are a mix of what would really be a “Player’s Handbook” in that sense and you’d have to break them apart from what they are now to be what I think most players and GMs would actually expect if they wanted to buy something called a “Player’s Handbook”, or “Player’s Guide” in this case. If CM is meant to be that core then some of the stuff currently in this Player’s Guide really should be in CM, IMO, and then change the name from Player’s Guide to something else, like a companion, that then has appropriate things for a Companion, like, perhaps, the horse rules, and Serious Injuries (maybe leaving a simplified version on CM). Then CM is, essentially, the Player’s Guide (usually the first book a player or GM will pick up to check out a game system, if you ask me).
In other words both the name “Player’s Guide” might be a bit misleading here (since it is not the core rules) and what is in it could potentially be changed to better reflect the purpose of fleshing things out in the Codex Integrum rules world. Balitc and Adventum are all good as it, that wouldn’t affect that, and Ingenium is all about in-depth character creation so that’s fine to itself as well, IMHO. I just think you have a bit of a problem with naming, here, and what actually should be in your core rules book and what should be a companion to that. The extra stuff is all still there to both of those books, it sounds to me, for those wanting that more in-depth experience.