Well if Banana's jumped on this one then I'm allowed to too.
(I try to abstain for fear of monotony ;-)
First things that spring to mind - the cursor choices should be largely redundant.
They all allow you to advance through the recordset and update it (assuming the data and lock type permits it).
Not focussing on the recent changes, but the original issues, you said you've confirmed that the recordset has records.
Is that based upon a check on EOF - or that you've run the query used in the recordset separately?
The classic mistake here is assuming that the query opened in the UI matches that of the recordset. Very often in such examples the OP is including wildcard criteria
WHERE FieldName Like [EnterName] & "*"
Works fine in DAO and the Access UI - but with the OLEDB provider accepting % as a wildcard it returns zero in the recordset in code.
So confirm in code that your recordset has the records you'd expect.
Your latest attempt at filtering
(rsCivilActivitySlipsUnfiltered.Filter = "JobNumber Like 001*")
would seem to confirm this suspiscion. Even though that is now in DAO and so valid.
I agree with Banana about the updating.
(At least I think I do - we'd had such a discussion before :-s)
There is no need to call an Edit method in ADO. Indeed - as you've found, there is no such method. Changes to the values imply editing directly.
While I wholeheartedly agree that DAO is intrinsically Jet oriented and appropriate for use in Access I wouldn't personally advocate leaving ADO behind if that's what you're using - just because a procedure is putting up a bit of a fight. That just means you get to have fun for a while. (Enjoy the times when developing fights you more frequently! They grow ever fewer. :-s)
They each have their benefits. (And yes, I've known ADO outperform DAO at times even against Jet data - but that's not the norm).
So - on to the last issue...
rsCivilActivitySlipsUnfiltered.Filter = "JobNumber Like '001*'"
or
rsCivilActivitySlipsUnfiltered.Filter = "JobNumber Like ""001*"""
if you particularly love double quotes, I know Bob likes 'em ;-)
Cheers.