I think you may be exaggerating the effect of section 9 of the OGL v1.0/1.0a.
The OGL is a private legal agreement. It is binding only on those who are party to it, in virtue of their agreement to be bound.
If a publisher (say WotC) publishes a document (say, a SRD) and then makes it available under the OGL 1.0/1.0a (ie they offer to any and all takers to enter into a licence with them on the OGL 1.0/1.0a terms), and others (ie 3rd party publishers) accept that offer on those terms, the offering publisher is bound. This means that WotC is obliged to allow distribution of its existing OGL-released SRD material under future versions of the OGL that it releases (ie "authorized versions" as per section 9).
Just sticking to this bit of the analysis, I think that @estar
is correct to flag the possibility that OGL 1.1 may not be a "version" of OGL 1.0/1.0a, as it apparently will not permit someone who becomes a party to it to distribute OGC royalty-free. Hence anyone bound by the terms of the OGL 1.1 (as announced to date) cannot comply with sections 2 and 4 of the OGL 1.0/1.0a. Which seems to me to be sufficient to imply that OGL 1.1 will not be a "version" for section 9 purposes.
But anyway, moving on:
Suppose that a publisher (eg WotC) publishes a document (eg a revised SRD) and makes it available under OGL 1.1, that new offer is not bound by the terms of the old offer. That offer might, for instance, be an offer to permit use of the revised SRD material under OGL 1.1 terms but not under OGL 1.0/1.0a terms. And the existence of an earlier offer under those earlier terms won't be relevant to the new offer.
What seems more relevant than section 9 is the definition, in section 1, of "Derivative Material" and "Use", together with section 4. To explain why I think this:
Section 4 of the OGL 1.0/1.0a permits parties to the licence (licensors) to "Use" the licensed OGC. "Use" is defined to mean (by way of the definition of "Distribute") "reproduce, license, rent, lease, sell, broadcast, publicly display, transmit or otherwise distribute, copy, edit, format, modify, translate and otherwise create Derivative Material of Open Game Content". And "Derivative Material" means "means copyrighted material including derivative works and translations (including into other computer languages), potation, modification, correction, addition, extension, upgrade, improvement, compilation, abridgment or other form in which an existing work may be recast, transformed or adapted".
So if the revised SRD is a derivate work, addition to, extension of, or improvement of the existing SRD then the OGL 1.0/1.0a seems to already licence licensors to use the revised SRD. And those licensors have in turn been authorised, by the terms of the OGL 1.0/1.0a, to issue sub-licenses in respect of the OGC they are authorised to use.
At this point my ability to analyse comes to an end - and contractual construction is not my main field, so all of the above is put forward tentatively rather than dogmatically. I call on @S'mon
to see if he is able to express a more expert view.