After some serious web badgering by me I have obtained the response below from one of those involved in POWER 2010.
@ The Cornish Democract
No, and you're right. I think the guide would have been better had it mentioned Cornwall and this is an omission on the part of the guide writers.
Although regionalism was by far the most popular idea for decentralisation within England at the submissions phase it would have been better to mention the fact that devolution could take place to the county level and that there is demand in Cornwall for this type of devolution fuelled, in part, by the anomalous constitutional position of Cornwall.
I can only explain this as an oversight - it's not a deliberate attempt to deny Cornish representation. The possibility of having a referendum on a Cornish assembly would be provided for by, reform 10, the citizen-initiated referenda reform, so the mechanism to have that vote could have made it through (although admittedly Cornwall wasn't mentioned in relation to that in the Guide).
If it's any consolation devolution to national and new sub-national levels was very unpopular on the day and I doubt acknowledging the Cornish question would have changed this. There was a general mood amongst participants that was hostile to new layers of politicians or new units of government.
ps - I hadn't been ignoring you, there's just a fair few comments on the process that I've needed to respond to (as well as a lot of work to do).
Sadly it is no longer possible to vote for reform 10 -citizen initiated referenda- but POWER 2010 does propose other reforms that may interest the Cornish movement. Directly elected Mayors, stronger local government, proportional representation and a written constitution being examples of what you can vote for by clicking this link: http://www.power2010.org.uk/votes