What is best current estimate of eukaryote evolutionary tree? (Adl, Corliss ?)

I got curious about the relationship between several protist phyla
(Entoprocta Phoronida Ectoprocta Bryozoa) and tried a Google search
to get more info, and found two pieces of incomplete information:

Several references including <http://www.treesearch.fs.fed.us/pubs/30101>
report that Adl has proposed an organization of 6 major groups
above phylum level, none of which I've been able to find listed online.

Other references including
<https://www.researchgate.net/publication/16800216_The_kingdom_Protista_and_its_45_phyla>
report that Corliss has proposed an organization of 18
supraphyletic groups, of which only the first 7 (rhizopods,
mastigomycetes chlorobionts euglenozoa rhodophytes cryptomonads
choanoflagellates) are explicitly listed before "ABSTRACT TRUNCATED
AT 400 WORDS".

It's possible that the 18 groups are a finer division consistent
with the 6 larger groups, but I have no idea if that is the case or
of these two researchers are directly disagreeing with each other
in their proposed classification systems. Does anybody in this
newsgroup have access to the full list of either Adl's 6 or
Corliss's 18? Does anyone advocate yet a third current proposed
classification system for eukaryotes?

Back to the original question I was researching, I saw conflicting
research results, one claiming that Bryozoa = Entoprocta + Ectoprocta
is monophyletic (one entire clade), and another claiming to refute
that theory, claiming instead that Entoprocta + Phoronida are
sister clades only distantly related to Ectoprocta hence "Bryozoa"
is not a valid name except if redefined to be nothing but a synonym
for Ectoprocta, which I find disagreeable. In particular, despite
the fact that Entoprocta don't have a coelum whereas Ectoprocta do,
one author claims this have/notHave coelum feature is "plastic",
that it's relatively easy for evolution to make it come and go over
time, rather than being an essential feature that is nigh
impossible to change hence must have been fixed very early between
two different clades which later each diverged to modern phyla.
Does anybody here know of any good resolution of this question, or
is this still undecided? Common sense says that the split between
developing a coelum or not developed very early and can't switch
back and forth during recent evolution, but common sense isn't
always right. (That's why we have science!)
...

.