Well. I missed some stuff in this thread.
the problem with the line as it stands is the poor scaffolding to usher people from one era to another.
This is basically the reason (as far as I'm aware, but I'm pretty aware) why the newer "reprint" TROs have been titled to era and not year. It's a marketing thing.
For a new player / customer, "3050" versus "3075" means nothing. They're numbers. Yes, to
you, the experienced smartypants, those numbers instantly register as "initial Clan Invasion" and "depths of the Jihad."
Recent sourcebooks have all borne the various era logos, with the era in which that book is set (more or less) highlighted. It's not applied perfectly, but that's the guidepost for a new customer to understand what they're looking at. Same reason that most of those books carry a page explaining each era, next to that era's same logo.
In a perfect, more organized world, there would be better funnels built to guide new customers where to go. At the moment, the best we can do is try to be matchy-matchy with era naming conventions.
When we were devising Chaos Campaign: Succession Wars, I suggested that as the name, because it plugs in "correctly" with TRO: Succession Wars and Record Sheets: Succession Wars. We want to avoid customers having to know things that aren't intuitive. "Oh, I see, this book I'm holding is "TRO: 3025," and I know that year is the Fourth Succession War." It's too much. Even the reprint TRO 3025 put "The Succession Wars" on the cover. TRO 3050 put "The Return of Kerensky" on its cover. And so on.