Dear Dominik,
actually I don't assume that Camillo is not in fact aware of the distinction,
but found his assertion (“[...] various estimates of the number of South Asian manuscripts,
but again, these numbers again are simply telling us—in an unreliable way—how many books
have survived, not how many works were composed”) to be a bit unclear in that respect,
given particularly the “how” is problematic.
Of course, his point that we don't know how much is lost is obvious.
But, given that both the very notion of a Sanskrit manuscript as well as the correlation
between manuscripts and works are rather complex, there is a tendency of oversimplification
when asserting that the numbers of manuscripts “are simply telling us ... how many books have survived”.
My point has merely been to reemphasize the nature of these complexities,
thereby some of the implicit problems concerning our basis for answering questions
concerning quantitative assessments of the “body of Sanskrit literature” generated
in pre-modern times.
Best wishes,
Hartmut