That statement cuts to the heart of why this defect in Windows Scrivenings is such an insidious thing.
As you’ve said, it discourages you from using Scrivenings.
In my opinion, when users are discouraged from using Scrivenings, that undercuts some of the key assumptions L&L made when they designed their feature set.
“Smaller+more documents is a better way to structure your binder than larger+fewer documents”. Better because more discrete text elements create more opportunities to utilize metadata, doc links, bookmarks, all those powerful features that Scrivener offers, and “there’s no downside to creating smaller+more documents”.
But with the Windows Scrivenings defect, there is a downside, because there’s no way to view these text elements as part of the larger whole. (Yes, the feature exists, but it doesn’t work.)
I discussed that in more detail in this post from April 2020, which was a response to Kathrine of L&L wondering “what need intra-document links address that cannot be met by the more ‘Scrivener-like’ method of splitting a document and using document-to-document links.” Unfortunately my admittedly verbose post received no reply from L&L.
Best,
Jim