No worries. Perhaps you could clarify one of the comments. You mentioned that the design / presentation was one of the better aspects. If didn't notice anything innovative in this regard on a quick pass. How do you feel it does well on that front.
FYI, in general I hate the 3e/PF1e book design / format / presentation and that is one reason I skipped that edition. However, I am not familiar with adventure design from the era either.
For me, it's strongly an appreciation for the aesthetic presentation. I like how it's organized, find it very easy to read and follow, the quality of the materials (since I bought physical copies and not digital ones) used to make it feels good and seems pretty durable (no falling out pages, ink smudging, pages don't easily tear simply leafing through, etc), the quality and contrast of the text on the background (contributes to the easy to read/on the eyes), I enjoy the art...it all just strikes a chord with me.
As far as innovation goes...I don't particularly care if it's innovative or not. I care if it's organized well, easy to follow, easy to read (ease on the eyes and well written), has well developed lore with more than a passing summary of people and places and events that are relevant to whatever story is being offered. It also offered plenty of plot and character ideas and concepts I could easily pluck and drop into my own adventures.
Plus, this was also the first strong look at the OA-styled area of Golarion (or at least a small section thererin with significant detail) which I had been hoping to see for PF at some point (to see if it would offer region-specific player options as well as far as character creation, magic items, etc).
Then you factor in the nostalgia element...it all just coalesced for me. It also suggested to me Paizo really do want to put out the best product they can put out because of those factors I mentioned that I value highly. That's hardly definitive for anyone but myself of course, but that's the impression it left me with (however weakly or strongly others may interpret my own valuations).
I find WotC adventure products, historically, have been bare minimum efforts in the areas I value. Certainly not all I'm sure, since I haven't read them all. I have an enormous soft-spot for the original Ruins of Undermountain boxed set from the AD&D 2e era (first boxed set I ever owned), which is why I had asked for the Mad Mage adventure for 5e (to see if it would stir joyful memories of that original boxed set). It stirred some, but overall I was massively unimpressed. It just seemed so minimal and cheaply made and rushed (not saying that it is, merely that that's how I felt upon reading it).
Obviously massive amounts of work go into any adventure no matter who produces them and I don't criticize the talents of those who contribute to them in whatever fashion. Simply, the completed work for most of the TSR/WotC adventures I've come across have (almost) always disappointed. Mad Mage, for instance, is to my aesthetic tastes, just one ugly-arse book (sloppy organization, hard on the eyes over a short time, minimal world building, NPCs that amount to little more than simple stat blocks, etc).