Cause if so... oh boy do we need to make a bunch of changes.

That bit of snark aside, most of this is about internal consistency and playability.

2) Why exactly? Pebble to boulder makes sense, to me, or earth wave or earthquake, but stoneshatter seems a bit like giving an angel power word kill. Angels are about killing, they could have it, but the connotation is anathema IMHO, same with stoneshatter and earth elems. I'm ok with a disgreement here, mostly making an argument in favor of playability

3) It clearly is to give a mage the tools to defeat the elementals with something they're clearly vulnerable to. Making that thing made of stone and thus stone shatterable seems off. Not from realism, but from playability. There is no reason that wand can't be glass like all the others.

4) The label and application, plus the fact smoke doesn't have an opposing wand leads me to believe it was mislabeled or something. Doesn't appear to be internally consistent with the rest of the area's design, which is why I mention it.

5) Ever tried to put out a fire with ice cubes? Again the interal consitency of the area leads me to believe that ice beats magma more and water beats fire more as they are opposite on the diagram and thats how all the other planes work. Smoke vs Ooze, Air vs Earth (although that one is weird).

6) Understandable, this time I'm making a playability argument vs. being consistent with the water planes handbook for an old edition of D&D.

7) Are you trying to tell me those are in there? Because if they are they are crazy good hidden.

8) Annoying to the very people meant to use it isn't a very friendly design.

9) Agreed