I haven't seen Zamulin's book, but according to one person who's had access to the manuscript, it doesn't do much with German sources, so it apparently examines the battle from the Soviet perspective - what conclusions he draws, I couldn't say.
But I do know that George Nipe extensively references the original Army Group South, Fourth Panzer Army, Army Detachment Kempf, XLVIII & III Panzer Corps, & II SS Panzer Corps records, to include morning, mid-day & evening situation reports, the daily commander's commentary, radio messages & KTBs with various Anlagen, to include daily tank strengths, casualty reports, consumption of ammunition reports, and the various spot reports that arrived throughout each day of combat. I've used these same kinds of reports myself, and have found that the officers submitting them (or writing them) was doing his very best to capture the actual situation as best he could - and of course, some things are quite factual - either you have 15 tanks operational or not; how many units of ammunition you have on hand; how many killed and wounded suffered each day and so on.
But the point is not that Nipe used these reports; it's that for the past 65 years, the mainstream respectable & well-known historians never bothered to use them at all, satisfying themselves instead with the official Soviet version of how the events unfolded - a version that was never military in nature, but always political. That's not to say that there weren't accurate Soviet reports of the battle - there were - but most of these were for internal consumption by the Red Army itself and never intended for public release.
But like I said, Nipe's book will be extremely controversial and I hope that when any of you do manage to get your hands on a copy, you'll approach it with an open mind & a disposition to question the "popular" version of the battle which has indeed assumed mythical status.
Abbott: This sure is a beautiful forest.
Costello: Too bad you can't see it for all those trees!