? 
Regarding your points 1,2 and I have no problem except one. History of Sikkim says words "Limbuwaan" and "Tsong" existed at the same time in the history. Then why two words.
Later after reading yours posting twice and Kirat_rocks posting I think It is explanable.
You "Limbu translates to "archer" or "bearer of bow and arrow"
Kirat_rocks "the literal meaning of limbu in 'yathung' language is bearer of bow, 'li' means bow"
I understand this must have been writtien somehere in history of limbu that is why you guys posted here.
For me this seems to be a very naieve explanation. Why ? let us analyse this statement
In sikkim there were three groups of people Lepcha, bhutia and tsong. History of sikkims ays that these three races fought with each other, faught against Gurkhas.
1. While fighting with each other all three races (bhutia, Lepcha and tsong) must have used bow and arrow
2. Army of the rular of the Sikkim must have batallian or whatever whuch uses bow and arrow as weapons of choice
3. Therefore, use of Bow and arrow is not limited to the "tsong"
4. History of the world shows that at one stage every race used bow and arrow as a weapons of choice.
5. If Bhutia and lepcha also using bow and arrow why only "tsong" were called limbu why not Bhutia and lepcha. Warrieor of Bhutia and Lepcha were also bearrer of the bow and arrow.
6. History of the world tells us that in olden days weapons were considered sacred, bow and arrow being sacred to limbu is not special.
7. Using bow and arrow was a very common practice among fighetrs at that time of the history , and considering bow and arrow as sacred is not specific to limbu, this explanation is not suffcient to explain the start of new "Jaat" Limbu. Because common practice does not require seperatin only specific practice requires new identification according to Sociology.
But later I found hidden explanation which is plausible, looks logical but do not have evidence. My explanation based on yours and Kirat_rocks posting and after reading History of sikkim is
In Sikkim somehow "tsongs" were not teated equally. It may be because the rular were tyrant and "tsongs" were asking rular to behave. Which offcourse rulars dont like and hey used to give "tsongs" a lots of hard time, one of those is forced labour.
ot may be "tsong" were considered bad people ( I dont know waht was considerd bad at that time) so "tsong" were subjected to forced labour
Anyway "tsong" dont like the begavior of the King and many of them decided to revolt against. For revolution they needed weapons and I am sure that there was no AK-47 at that time so they had to use bow and arrow. They fled to Limbuwaan organise a army and raided many parts of the Sikkim.
So, the group of people with bow and arrow raiding different parts of the Sikkim. This specific activity may be good enough reason to start new "jaat" Limbu from "tsong".
So in generel, we can consider Limbu as "bow and arrow" krantikari. A krantikari which bears bow and arrow. Not a regular military. This behavior of some (not all ) tsong was good enough for starting new "race" "Limbu".
Ok, Now what happend to those "tsong" which acepted the forced labour and those "tsong" who were doing "chakadi" "chaplusi".to avoid forced labour (This is human behavior and existed in every society)?
They either remained as tsong in Sikkim ( they still have Limbus in Sikkim dont they) I guess Pawan Chamling , Chief minister is a Limbu) and later started to call themslevs as Limbu.
This is very plausible explanation but no hard evidence.
your pint no. 4
No comment. all neighbours are interdependent to some extent, so very usual.
your point no. 5
to proove this you have to come with acceptable evidence because
The British India describes its relation with Bhutan, Sikkim, Nepal, and other smallar principality of Indian sub continent. But they have not said anyhting about their relation with limbuwaan, their commerece with limbuwaan nothing. I might have overlooked it. if you have any evidence please share.
According to to history of Limbuwaan posted in their website. The limbwaan continued to exists in the era while British were expanding their colony. Calcutta was their capital before Delhi. How come British never mentioned anyhting about their relationship and dealing with Lmbuwaan?
English writer have written about Limbu and Limbuwaan only within the contest of Nepal and Sikkim. Not as a separte state. Howcome?
Howcome British empire missed Limbuwaan?
This point also contradicts the history of Sikkim, now dont blame Baauns for History of Sikkim.
History of Nepal, Sikkim and British India suggest that In Limbuwaan some were designated as tax collector for either Sikkim or Bhutan or Nepal depending upon to which country they belongd to in different time of the History. They were called, Subba, Mukhiya ( I think some Limbus have Mukhiya as family name). Later people confused them as kings and so started the the History.
your point 6.
It contradicts with your point 5. Most probably when Limbu tax collector found that Gurkhas are unstopable they broke their relation with Sikkim and obtained "lalmohar" with gurkhas.
point 6 laso contradicts what is written in the history of sikkim. read below.
The rise ofGurkhas also posed a threat for Sikkim. The later years of Phuntsok II witnessed Gurkhas inroads in Sikkim under the leadership of Raja Prithvi Narayan Shah of Nepal who formented the rebellious elements in Sikkim.
http://www.sikkim.nic.in/sws/sikk_his.htm
again not written by baahun and Gorkhas but the history of sikkim
Most probably PNS used the Limbus hate against the King of Sikkim to annex the Limbuwaan from Sikkim. Most logical is Sikkim lost the war. PNS pursuaded the limbu tax collector to join Gorlha nations in exchange of tax collection freedom.
If there was a firece war between Limbuwaan and Gurkha, British must have come to meddle, they dont even mention this type of war happening, instead they mention about Gurkha Sikkim war, how come? Why British empire is quiet about this? This is totally agianst the nature of British empire.
Point 7 : 90% agreed
Different people were designated as tax colector in different settelements. may be there were 7 or 10 settelements and 10 different people were collecting tax in their corresponding settelement on behalf of the country they belonged to.
Point 8.
Different perception, but may be true
Point 9
I agree
Point 10
If it was a allience history of British India might have spoken about it while mentioning Gurkha Sikkim war. They are silent about Limbuwaan. I dont see any British conspiracy in it. British India was very infamous or its divide and rule policy. If there was a country called Limbuwaan and as strong as depicted in Limbuwaan website British might have used that oppertunity to further supress Nepal as they used Sikkim Nepal dispute to fuel enemety between these two country.
As I said before history without documented evidence and if it is not third party verifiable is a mythology not history.
History of Bhutan is quiet about country of Limbuwan
History of Sikkim is quiet about the country of Limbuwaan
And British India has not spoken a wrod about the country of Limbuwaan
According to Limbuwaan website geography of the country of Limbuwaan, all three of these countries share border with limbuwaan.
Whereas history of Sikkim and Bhutan speaks about geographical area called limbuwaan and, tax collectors and security officers acting on behalf of their country.
It is boring to me too. But hey as someone said
Your study is not complet untill you spent 30% of your study studying the thimgs you dont like.
Regarding you doubdt about my interest about federal system in nepal I will explain later.