Not reliably. The old CC-DOS used a list of numbered fonts. I can tell what font number they used, and if they used the default font list, I can do some assumptions from that, but I already know they didn't use the defaults thanks to the Symbols2 font which I had to manually add to position 7.

Arial is just a placeholder when the actual font is not found. I can guarantee that the old maps did not use arial, but due to the limited resolution in DOS, maps would tend to use mostly plain fonts.

Here is an export of the Sebrun map from CC-DOS, which you can compare to the CC3 result below. Mostly very similar, but you can pick out a few small differences.

I've put hi-res version of these in my gallery, but because on heavy reliance on 0-width lines, this makes them look horrible when zoomed out, but you can appreciate the detail when looking at them in 100% zoom (hint: middle click the thumbnails in the gallery to open the map in a new tab instead of the gallery viewer, this allows you to use the browser's zoom capabilities)

Nicely done. These are good maps. That road in the top map looks like it could be improved with a bit of an edge fade though, or something else to break up that very hard edge.

Looks like the regular selection indicators. As long as you are not inside an actual command and actively have these selected, it should go away with a click on :CC2REDRAW:, or in very rare cases, select something else first, such as draw a temporary line, then :CC2ERASE: it (since this involves selecting it) and then do :CC2REDRAW:.

November 1st is a Sunday. You probably have to wait until the 2nd.

If things look different inside CC3+ when compared to an export, that is usually a fill or effect scaling issue. If fills are not scaled, or if effects are scaled to view size, the output will be different since the "view" during an export is very different from the normal view.

Size of the export (in pixels) also matters a bit of course.