Still, somehow, online archives are just document databases of mixed content. Just bags of crap and treasure that can be picked through using search engines if you can guess the correct magical incantation and the engine hasn't been told to selectively ignore what you've said. Archive.org and books.google.com are said to be valuable archives (and they are), but try to find all four volumes of a four volume set, or all of the works of an author in chronological order. I'll give you an hour.
This could be solved by giving users the ability to add those connections, and providing a deliberative system to edit and cultivate those added connections. They'll do it for free. It mostly works on wikipedia, even when as they dramatically fail in other ways.
Let people add links to content, and come up with deliberative procedures to avoid problems such as spam. "Community Notes" is a good attempt on Twitter. Wikipedia has a process for auditing references and links.
Instead of using public deliberation, we have random drones or execs hardcoding "Jonathan Turley" into secret LLM prompts because somebody saw him on TV complaining about LLMs libeling him. Ad hoc authoritarianism is not the answer, but somehow it's the only solution we ever use because deliberation is hard and requires relinquishing a bit of control.