Provenance example and incorrect timeline assumption

In "Example 18. Enriching XLIFF Documents with Provenance Annotations", the text
below the example for the standoff notation says:

"In this example, stacking of the individual records indicates relative time."
And ".as well as the sequence of different
translation tools would have been impossible if the annotation was inline only."

This is incorrect. The Provenance data category does not expects the records to
express a specific timeline. The ITS specification
says (at https://www.w3.org/TR/its20/#provenance):

".Third, if provenance information is needed that includes temporal or sequence
information about translation processes (e.g.
multiple revision cycles) or requires agents that support a wider range of
activities, the data category offers a mechanism to refer
to external provenance information."

The section should be revised to reflect that order of record elements does not
express a timeline.