Well...

Here's a likely source for the root of the problem:

https://www.the-blueprints.com/blueprints/ships/cruisers-france/33358/view/nmf_georges_leygues_light_cruiser_1943/

There is even a name attached.

It is labeled "1943," but has the supersturcture extention. If they insist on getting their info off the internet, then if they would have checked photos, they might have caught the problem:

https://www.reddit.com/r/WarshipPorn/comments/c1be4f/a_birds_eye_view_of_la_galissonni%C3%A8re_class_light/

Both of these have the missing 40 mm mounts, so there's no excuse I know of for that error.

In reading Rick's post below, it hits me how complicated ship subjects are, but also exactly why everyone has waited so long wondering why they don't release subjects like this. "Each sister had different bridge configurations during and after WWII." So, as a kit designer, which one of these do I make? Which one would sell best? Which era? I can't just do one ship for the class, I have to make individual versions of each of them? This looks exactly like the Forrestal class, and why the kit makers are indicating they won't touch that subject. Too many versions from too many eras with no clear indications of what would sell best.

Sometimes, ignorance is bliss. Hey, folks are asking for "other stuff" besides just American ships. Looks like a market. I got these plans of a French cruiser from the net. Looks straightforward. Why don't we give it too them?

Well, THIS is why, people. Who knew you needed 6 different bridges from about 3 different eras just to do this subject? If I were a knowlegeable kit maker, I would avoid this subject like the plague. Give me "simple mass produced subjects" any day.