Repunched Or A Doubled Die?

How easy is it to tell doubled dies from repunched letters and dates?

Here are a few coins where I've questioned whether they are repunched dates or doubled dies.
The first is a Norway 50 ore, where I see doubling in the 1948.
However, were any dates "repunched" as late as 1948--or did this have to be caused by a doubled die? What best explains the different serifs?
Sometimes it's a challenge to look beyond what we want to see and consider a more plausible explanation that takes everything into account.
Looking at the photo below, what do the details suggest on this coin?

(click to see full resolution)


The second coin is a Sweden 1904 2 ore, where I noticed something very interesting on the "N" in the devices, as shown below in the detail.
What do you think is going on here? Can this coin be easily explained by a doubled die?
While it could be a double die, I think if the N was offset that much by a second hubbing, I would expect to see doubling in the top serifs of the E.
While there is slight doubling in the base of the A (second detail), I'm not positive the two are related.




On the other hand, I consider a sure sign of a repunched device when there are different offsets and directions between adjacent letters or numbers.
A good example is this 1 ore coin from 1858, where the two digits "85" are unmistakably repunched in the date.
Here the 5 is pretty obvious, and the 8 shows a distinctive pronged shape where an 8 was repunched below the main digit (top detail).



One good way to see how a date was repunched is to create an outline of the date and see how it relates to the underlying digits.
In this example, I cannot match both RPDs to any position of the date outline in the second detail.
However, moving the 8 and 5 independently best explains the RPDs, as seen in the third detail.
This could mean the digits were punched independently (not using a gang punch),
or possibly the date was punched over an already dated die with a different punch setting--or lastly a die from a previous year was re-used (ie an overdate).
But here I don't consider an overdate necessary to explain what I see on the coin, since there is no clear evidence of a second digit under the last 8.
Just a few initial thoughts--please feel free to add comments below.