Just a cautionary note on comparing rivet patterns: They are not exact. The same part, from one aircraft to another, may have a different rivet pattern. Mass produced parts may have had pre-located pilot holes or dimples in the original production parts which will set the fastener pattern. Many parts have the fasteners located by the mechanic at the time of assembly. If the part(s) in question were part of a repair the fastener pattern can be wildly different depending what the mechanic had to work with. Fasteners in repairs quite often have to be located differently from the original fasteners to maintain edge distance on the repair and new parts, ability to get a bucking bar on the buck-tail of the rivet, etc. You try to keep the original fastener pattern, but, this is not always possible.
What I am not sure of "state of the art" that existed by the the time the 10E was built. I believe the industry standards were pretty well set by then. A friend of mine is building two Boeing P-26s from original plans. It was the U. S. Army's first all metal fighter. It was also the last open cockpit and fixed undercarriage fighter. These were built in the early 1930's (1931-36). The plans for these aircraft do not look like plans that I have seen from WWII era aircraft. They looked like what you would generate if you were to build the aircraft out of wood! By WWII the industry procedures and processes were very mature and look very much like they do today. I think Lockheed was farther along than Boeing at that time. The whole industry was changing pretty fast at that time. At that time, in the middle of the Depression, drawing media, vellum and possibly linen, were probably expensive. Because of this it was standard practice to detail multiple parts on a single sheet. Once you have the drawings in hand it may be a chore to find any one given part. It will be interesting --- and FUN!