I had always assumed that when they said "Fidelity charges a short-term trading fee each time you sell or exchange shares of a FundsNetwork NTF fund held less than 60 days." they meant actual share lots. Is there a Fidelity link where the FIFO logic you have outlined is spelled out or is this based on your experience / Fido CS information?

Merrill? 4.71%, but that's non-sweep and requires a $100K min.

I think this is in reference to their

Preferred Deposit account. If so, this is only an initial investment min, hence one would conceivably put in $100K then take them out leaving, say, $1 and then add/withdraw funds as needed - manually, as this is indeed a non-sweep account. I believe they also have several sweep accounts paying 5.17% atm, but these require a greater commitment shown here.

[Your account must be enrolled in] (1) the Merrill Lynch Investment Advisory Program, (2) the Merrill Lynch Strategic Portfolio Advisor Service; (3) the Merrill Lynch Managed Account Service; (4) the BlackRock Private Investors Service; (5) the Merrill Guided Investing Program; (6) the Merrill Guided Investing with Advisor Program; [or] (7) the Merrill Edge Advisory Account program.

Incidentally, I was also told that one can trade against their mm fund balance at Merrill - the same way one can do, say, at Schwab - can anyone confirm this?)

In addition to your Primary Money Account, you may be able to choose additional cash sweep options or “manual alternatives” that provide automatic withdrawal/redemption only. Depending on your account type, manual alternatives may include bank deposit programs, money market mutual funds or the Insured Savings Account (ISA®),1 a limited transaction deposit program.

But it also used to be that a Private Client customer at Fidelity was assigned a specific rep. No more at either brokerage.

Fidelity still assigns you an individual Premier Services Advisor.
@msf did they also used to assign another kind of "specific rep" as well?

As a matter of fact, they've assigned a Private Access Account Executive, a Private Client Group Account Executive (same person, different title), a Senior Account Executive (same person), an Account Executive (same person), and a Financial Consultant (same person).
Then the musical chairs began. No title changes, but in the span of three years, three different "Financial Consultants". Then a year later, when the last one left Fidelity, I was not assigned any specific rep, whatever title you wish to give to them.

Merrill? 4.71%, but that's non-sweep and requires a $100K min.

The Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) said on Friday it will open a three-month review of Boeing’s compliance with safety regulations, continuing the agency’s closer oversight of the company since a panel blew off a Boeing jetliner during an Alaska Airlines flight in January.
The FAA said its review will examine key areas of safety processes at Boeing to make sure that they “result in timely, accurate safety-related information for FAA use”.
An FAA spokesperson said the review was not triggered by any particular event or concern but rather is part of the FAA’s oversight of safety culture at the huge aircraft maker.
Boeing did not comment immediately on the new review.
The FAA administrator, Mike Whitaker, has ordered special audits of Boeing and other steps to examine the safety culture at the company since a panel called a door plug blew off a 737 Max during the Alaska Airlines flight.
However, the inspector general of the transportation department, the FAA’s parent agency, said last week that weaknesses in FAA oversight are limiting its ability to find and fix problems at Boeing.
The auditor said the FAA has failed to ensure that Boeing and its suppliers make parts that meet engineering and design requirements and to investigate claims that Boeing puts improper pressure on employees who are authorized to conduct safety inspections. The FAA has closed only 14 of 34 reports of undue pressure, with the others remaining open for more than a year on average, according to the report.
Last month, the National Transportation Safety Board issued an “urgent” recommendation to the FAA about a problem that surfaced in February with rudders that pilots use to steer certain Boeing 737s after landing. Two weeks later, the FAA later issued a safety alert to airlines about the matter.

Until the FDIC stops protecting uninsured depositors, this change is largely form without substance.
A few sentences from a NYTimes subscriber-only opinion piece (May 1, 2024)
https://www.nytimes.com/2024/05/01/opinion/fdic-insurance-banks.html

When Banks Fail, Why Do We Keep Bailing Out Uninsured Depositors?
[Michael] Ohlrogge, an associate professor at New York University Law School, argues that when banks fail, the F.D.I.C. is not resolving them in the manner that is least costly to its Deposit Insurance Fund.
...
It stands to reason that the cheapest way to resolve a bank failure in many cases — maybe most cases — would be to tell those uninsured depositors that their money is gone: “Sorry. See ya, Wouldn’t wanna be ya.”
But in a vast majority of bank failures, the F.D.I.C. approves a resolution in which the uninsured depositors don’t lose a penny [at typically higher cost].
...
Ohlrogge speculates that the F.D.I.C. is experiencing “mission creep,” taking on a responsibility for uninsured depositors that it was never assigned.

This is a copywrited, paywalled piece. I'm not going to reproduce more here. Ohlrogge's paper, Why Have Uninsured Depositors Become De Facto Insured? (Nov 15, 2023) is freely available and covers the material in more detail.
https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=4624095

When Banks Fail, Why Do We Keep Bailing Out Uninsured Depositors?
[Michael] Ohlrogge, an associate professor at New York University Law School, argues that when banks fail, the F.D.I.C. is not resolving them in the manner that is least costly to its Deposit Insurance Fund.
...
It stands to reason that the cheapest way to resolve a bank failure in many cases — maybe most cases — would be to tell those uninsured depositors that their money is gone: “Sorry. See ya, Wouldn’t wanna be ya.”
But in a vast majority of bank failures, the F.D.I.C. approves a resolution in which the uninsured depositors don’t lose a penny [at typically higher cost].
...
Ohlrogge speculates that the F.D.I.C. is experiencing “mission creep,” taking on a responsibility for uninsured depositors that it was never assigned.

CAPE CANAVERAL, Florida (Reuters) -Boeing's new Starliner astronaut capsule was poised for launch on Monday night on a much-delayed first crewed test flight to orbit, as the company scrambles to compete with Elon Musk's SpaceX for a greater share of lucrative NASA business.
The CST-100 Starliner with two astronauts aboard was due for liftoff at 10:34 p.m. from NASA's Kennedy Space Center in Florida, carried atop an Atlas V rocket furnished by the Boeing-Lockheed Martin joint venture United Launch Alliance (ULA).

Atlas V is an expendable launch system and the fifth major version in the Atlas launch vehicle family. It was originally designed by Lockheed Martin, now being operated by United Launch Alliance (ULA), a joint venture between Lockheed Martin and Boeing. It is used for DoD, NASA, and Commercial payloads. It is America's longest-serving active rocket. After 87 launches, in August 2021 ULA announced that Atlas V would be retired, and all 29 remaining launches had been sold. As of January 2024, 17 launches remain. Other future ULA launches will use the new Vulcan Centaur rocket.
Each Atlas V launch vehicle consists of two main stages. The first stage is powered by a Russian engine manufactured by Energomash and burning kerosene and liquid oxygen. The Centaur upper stage is powered by one or two American RL10 engine(s) manufactured by Aerojet Rocketdyne and burns liquid hydrogen and liquid oxygen. Strap-on solid rocket boosters are used in most configurations.