We’re pretty out of topic, but I’ll bring it back at the end.
I know RR, I started using it because a friend won me over when he showed me a transclusion while explaining some note of his. Tellingly, I remember the transclusion example, not the actual idea he was explaining. In retrospect, that should have been a warning, not an allure - do you want to be remembered because of the quirky tool you use or because of your ideas?
I wasn’t happy with some aspects of RR so I started using Logseq, for management of my incipient PhD and for development of various unfinished blog posts. In these months I used transclusion 2 times. Both times it was a sign of unfinished thought and an impediment for sharing the document. So both times I had to get rid of the transclusion to actually use the ideas. And the result was better for it.
So at this point, from where I sit, transclusion looks like a good way to dump unfinished ideas. It also looks like a warning that you didn’t do the actual work of analyzing/synthesizing information. It was a flashy crutch that made me feel I was progressing even though I was thinking and writing in circles.
And transclusion is mostly unpublishable - particularly in Markdown files! Again, for my literature review that was actually good, because that forced me to step back and decide what was the point that I was trying to publish. But even just sharing text files with my supervisor needed a rethink.
Of course this is just my ~1 year worth of experience with this subject. I bet there are other experiences.