As Salāmu ʿAlaykum, Agreed. I think this is one area where our tradition of commentary has excelled. Contrary to Orientalist quips on 'derivative' late-classical Islamic scholarship, ours is a tradition of tahqīq. Many of our savants are not opposed to [respectfully] reassessing the positions of their elders in their scholarly investigations. Just because something is a commentary doesn't mean the commentator always agrees. Having a commentator unpack additional meanings to a foundational text strengthens one's own understanding of the work as they develop 'layers of understanding'. On his writings regarding international affairs, one writer I find difficult to do this with is Chomsky. His citations are apparent, but the sheer volume of them would require a full-time commitment to fact check. Hence, harkening back to the benefits of the commentary format and the role of muhaqqiqs in critically verification. Not sure if a mish-mash of sub-par Excel-VBA makes the cut.