I wish you luck with this one, but fear your premise may be flawed.
During WW2 the British publications (eg Inf Trg, MTP, etc) were the baseline for tactics in Australian, NZ and other armies. However, one of the criticisms of the British Army is that too much discretion was allowed, basically it went back to Kings Regulations and the responsibilities of GOCs-in-C, Divisional and Brigade Commanders for training the troops under their command. The consequence was that while there was official doctrine it was interpreted in many ways. Furthermore once the Battle School movement got underway in UK its quite likely that British divisions did have individual tactical habits (although knowing the British Army no doubt units had their own ways as well).
For example there is a British view that the motorised battalions in armoured divisions were quite innovative and did develop novel tactics, they were mostly KRRC and the like but I've never come across anything to suggest that the Germans noticed!
This suggests that the Germans would have seen tactical variation across 'British' divisions and may not have bothered to differentiate between nationalities or particular divisions, they just treated it as typical variation within overall excessively flexible Britsh doctrine.
That said the Naval and Military Press (http://www.naval-military-press.com
) is reprinting the German Report Series. The other possible German source is captured documents, at least some of the British held ones are in the PRO under CAB 146/10 Enemy Documents Section. There might also be something from captured senior officer interviews, Von Arnim could be a possibility for the desert campaign. I think these are in WO 205/1021 Interrogation Reports German Generals.
The British did publish some stuff, for example ATM 44 published in 1942 contained an item 'As the Germans see us' (the AWM might hold a copy). '
However, translated Germans documents were published in intelligence summaries, typically those of Army or Theatre level. For example GHQ MEF Daily Intelligence Summary No 612 22 Jan 1942 published a response from 2 Bn, 104 Lorried Inf Regt, 21 Pz Div to a div questionnaire "The English and Australians are tough and hard opponents as individual fighters, highly skilled in defence, unimaginative and inflexible in attack, cold-blooded and skilled in in-fighting, experienced in assault, and capable of withstanding hardships of all kinds". This of course invites the questions as to what happened to the rest of the responses, what questions were asked and how often did the Germans do such things. This may be in the AWM the reference seems to be 3 DRL/6643/1/2Bii, but I'm quoting from David French's 'Raising Churchill's Army' and it could be a typo for IWM.
Of course there was not always harmony, in 1941 Wavell complained to the CIGS 'it is not always easy to persuade Dominion troops of the need of long training and they appear to want preferential treatment in matters of equipment'. Auchinleck also wrote to the CIGS in 1941 that in his opinion Australian, South African and to a lesser extent New Zealand units 'are apt to think that once they have been in battle, they have little to learn and are on the whole deeply suspicious of any attempt by us to teach them'.