Importance is the more obvious one - there is critical info you absolutely need as a basis to understand the system, then there is also minor details. The difference is in an emergency, lack of the former will break your attempt to fix the system, lack of the latter will merely inconvenience you.

The Frequence of Use axis is the one that brought value to our operations when we introduced it. That's the question "How often will I need this info?". Regularly re-occuring, detailled procedures need to be accessible easily, so they go to a prominent Confluence page. But then there is information that you will hardly ever need, some arcanae about the system that only the old timers knew but that needed to be fixed in writing.

The most vexing bits of info are those that are highly important but are rarely ever needed. Do you plonk them into Confluence? Might not be the best idea because then you don't know how to quickly find it when need be. So we had an extra category for just that sort of thing which became our go-to info hub for all sorts of highly urgent but at first intractable issues with our system.

LLMs seem to fall squarely into that category - the threshold to using them is incredibly low because you can "just talk to them" and they give back meaningful answers loaded with the sum total of human knowledge from the interwebs.

Maybe I am naive here, but wouldn't a sane person try to turn a rational eye on the problem stated therein and - maybe -think "what if there is a way to avoid chaining of AI agents at all?".

I say this was done intentionally - the Iranian Revolutionary Guards surely can put that extra income from advertisement during a highly televised event to good use.