::I don't know how I just saw this until now but, alas, if these are your reasons, I will absolutely be reverting this edit. Oh, where to begin?! 

 ::You wrote, It is the case that an acting A.G. will tend to tread lightly, but there are occasions in with the A.G. must act on the basis of their experience and judgement,  
 ::Once again, simply asserting it is not substantive evidence of anything other than your opinion. Your "examples" are (a) not examples and (b) original research. If you have independence, verifiable sources that discuss the trend of Acting AGs to make federal policy, please cite it. If not, this information simply does not count for wikipedia purposes.  

 ::Your first example is an editorial from the New York Times about one statement from an Acting AG on a piece of legislation. He expressed his opinion on legislation that was different from the previous Administration (but in line with the current Administration which kept him on.) This opinion piece is not an independent example of a newsworthy source but rather the opinion piece of the NYT editorial board, which had previously endorsed the Brady bill, that the opinion was proper. This is not evidence for much of anything other than Acting AGs sometimes have opinions. 

 ::Your second example is: If Reno's confirmation was delayed, for whatever reason, Gerson would have been in charge during the entire episode. 
 ::So, if something that did NOT happen would have happened, such an action might have been a major decision/story. How can you assert any of that matters?? The facts are that Reno was confirmed, Reno was in charge at the end of the Waco siege, and Reno took responsibility for the entire event. Her Acting AG predecessor has nothing to do with the story  your "evidence" is that if Reno had NOT been confirmed then the Acting AG MAY have had a notable policy decision. That's hardly reliable; it's complete conjecture, opinion, and unverified.  

 ::The best example for a "notable" decision involving an Acting AG is Robert Bork. Such an action was adequately covered by various news sources. But all those sources indicate the same thing: President Richard Nixon made the decision to fire Cox and looked for an officer to execute his decision. The AG and Deputy AG both refused  Bork's decision was ministerial and he did NOT make the policy or decision to fire Cox.  

 ::Your "evidence" is not evidence of anything. Acting AGs do not make policy, do not serve as "Attorneys General of the United States" and do not belong in a list of those people. I will remove them unless you can provide actual sources (verifiable, non-original research, independent) indicating that Acting AGs (or even a large portion of them) have ever made substantive federal legal policy. Failure to provide such sources will mean I will revert you. 

 ::