The problem we're trying to fix is that ctrl-f can only take you so far. Linear text, while conventional isn't the best way to organize and navigate knowledge. Sure, tacked on UX can help add functionality, but the data structure has an implication with its usage. By standardizing a data structure, any good UX is just pulling out functionality afforded by the structure instead of imposing functionality via UX. 

You interact at the level most meaningful for your task. You don't need bricks to analyze the architecture of a house or paint a wall, but if you want herringbone tiling for your kitchen you'll have to work at the level of tiles. Modular articles provide that level of grouping and introspection as an option, emphasis on option.

What pieces of existing libraries have you needed to use for your current client and why? What are they in service for, and how do they compose together to form your library? Are there other ideas that already exist that this implementation points toward, say in math and computer science? You point directly to the pieces of text involved in the synthesis of new knowledge, or you can just use the existing content verbatim as another note in your collage of notes.

Having these interactions on nostr allow for anyone to follow the trail of ideas that have been traversed and learn the same ideas for themselves. Something like that can't be afforded by a change in UX alone. 

 I just mean that the Bible already has this. Talking about the Bible on nostr creates new content that is atomic, but putting the Bible on nostr doesn't really add any granularity to the document.