The Enochian literature is unusually large and unusually uneven, and a few habits make it navigable.
Go to the manuscripts where you can. Dee's diaries and Sloane 3191 survive and have been published in transcription and facsimile. They are not difficult to consult. A very high proportion of confident statements in secondary sources cannot be traced back to them.
Date every claim. Ask whether a given detail is from the 1580s, the 1880s, from Crowley, or from the last few decades. The four layers are routinely presented as one. An attribution that entered practice through MacGregor Mathers is not thereby wrong, but it is not evidence about what Dee received.
Treat commercial sources with particular care. There is a large market in Enochian material, and confident specificity sells better than uncertainty. Claims that a given name governs a particular faculty, or corresponds to a particular tarot trump, or has a documented traditional character, are usually downstream of a single nineteenth-century or twentieth-century decision that has since been copied without attribution.
Distinguish the kinds of uncertainty. Some questions are genuinely contested and should be reported as such: Kelley's honesty is the standing example. Some are simply unsourced and can be checked. Some are unknowable, such as what precisely Kelley experienced when he looked into the crystal, and the right response there is to describe the range of views rather than to pick one.
Do not mistake internal coherence for provenance. The system is impressively coherent, and the Tablet of Union pattern in ZAX is a real structural fact. Coherence tells you the material was constructed to a design. It does not tell you by whom.