I'm struggling to find much concrete evidence to say that Livy's accounts, despite being the most complete we have, were that strong a source for the Second Punic War. Is there any I'm missing?
I'm not entirely sure I understand the question. Livy certainly produced a great deal of information on the 2nd Punic War, which you seem to accept. Is there a specific criticism of Livy that you'd like to open with to facilitate discussion?