LEB slips

Unless I am overlooking something, Ps 67:3 and Ps 67:5 are identical in Hebrew and thus also in English, but these verses differ (very slightly) in the LEB.

I also recently used "Report typo" for the following:

• "the women" in Num 5:22 should be "the woman"
• "exalt" in Isa 13:4 should be "exult"

Hope these will all be processed. Thanks!

I will make note of these needed corrections, though I have no timeline for when fixes will appear in the resource. Usually we wait for a critical mass of a batch of fixes at once. So if you find more, post them here and I'll add them to the list.

Perplexed by he addition in John 13:19 (bit inconsistent translation of phrase ἐγώ εἰμι in various places, plus he addition with footnote is a recent discussion issue in Christian Discourse)

...

Matthew 26:22 & Matthew 26:25 could have he* removed

This sort of thing is more of a choice than a "slip." With few exceptions, we are mainly fixing errors, not places where we disagree with the translator's original choice. The few times we've made changes that weren't merely correcting typos tend to be places where the translators clearly departed from the guidelines they were given, but it was overlooked in later reviews.

Many decisions in LEB go back to the NT/OT interlinear resources on which the translation is based. The addition of he in the passages you've noted tend to be of that nature. John 13:19 has a footnote in both LEB and the interlinear saying "he" was understood but needed to be explicit in English (yes, that's debatable, but it's debating a choice, not an error). Your own search shows that the addition of he in John 13:19 is far from unique to the LEB. Matthew 26:22, 25 both also have the object supplied in the interlinear. 

I'm not sure how it would make sense in English to say, literally, "I am not." In this case, I think supplying "he" is necessary for understanding. The ESV in Matt 26 goes with "Is it I?" for these, also supplying an object. This is a case where a pure literal one-to-one correspondence doesn't actually capture the meaning of an emphatic statement inviting a negative answer. The ESV's "Is it I?" and the LEB's "Surely, I am not he, am I?" are both attempts to capture that. 

If we ever decided to do a full revision and update to the LEB, then the team would revisit items like this that fall under translator's choice rather than translator's errors. In the meantime, I'm compiling all notes I get on errors that somehow made it through, even, apparently, in books that had a recent full error check like Numbers.

If the Report Typo tool is sufficient, I'll quit replicating here. Please let me know your preference.

You can do one or the other, but you don't need to do both. If you want to make sure an editor sees the mistake, post it here. Before I submit any request to update the Logos resource, I will ask for the report generated by the typo reporting feature though. However, I don't usually make that request until I already have a growing list of typos that I want to fix anyway. The main advantage of posting here is that it gets on my radar for gauging whether I have enough fixes for an update. 

However, you can stop reporting errors for Numbers. I thought it odd you were finding some still since we had someone go through the whole book last year because it had an inordinate number of typos. I thought those corrections had been made in the resource, but I just checked several examples, including Num 23:7, and discovered they were noted for correction but not implemented yet. I will follow up on that and probably add these latest observations to the notes for the update.