OK the title is perhaps a tad provocative but should we treat Acts any differently from Romans? He is basically documenting the history of the early church - "rulings" such as the Council of Jerusalem are viewed by some as a historic compromise allowing fellowship between Jews and Gentiles allowing "table fellowship". It records a "negGentile otiated settlement" which was discontinued as the Jewish "Ecclesia" gave way to the Gentile "ecclesia".

Is this an example of how it is historically accurate but eating kosher food is not "doctrine".

In Acts 2 we have an account of how the brethren sold their property and shared the proceeds. This could be viewed as a positive example (apostolic teaching) or documenting a believe in the immanent return of Messiah and the irresponsible disposal of assets which left the Jerusalem church impoverished and dependent on charity (historical documentation).

I suppose I am feeling my way towards getting a handle on Acts. What do others think?

In Acts you have Luke's continuation of the faithful account given to Theophilus which he began in his gospel. For the sake of systematic organization Matthew through Acts may be classed as historical books (something like the historical books of the OT) while the epistles can be viewed as didactic writings and Revelation classed as prophetic. These are not hard and fast categories but helpful ways of sytematizing the books. There will be elements of each "category" in the others.