I would have to go digging, but I believe that was a case that was less what you said, and more how you said it. There was a clear effort to structure the N4 book as a learning tool rather than a reference tool, but I feel like it shows signs of a somewhat rushed editing and layout process. There are a lot of errors in the physical book, and the desire to structure it like a tutorial results in excessive repetition of some things (states, mostly) and not enough cross referencing of of others (things like the cc vision, here).
