An additional observation. Now that the toledot statements are treated by a majority as primarily forward-looking (though, granted, serving as links in a series) rather than as colophons, there have been arguments about the lack of one in the Gen 1 creation account.
Does “In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth, and the earth was without form and void” serve as one, summarising the whole account, or is it an introduction only? Certainly it doesn’t follow the usual “These are the generations of…”
Combine that debate with the disontinuities in content and style that led the critical scholars and sequentialists like me to regard chs 1 and 2 as separate traditions, and it seems to me that an updated tablet theory frees us from what seems to me the rather artifical, and certainly YEC-biased, idea that God dictated to Adam what he’d been up to the previous week.
Instead, we could treat Gen 2.4-11.1 as the tradition, perhaps as physical tablets, that Moses received from his forebears (the Old Testament of the Old Testament), and the creation account as his own inspired theological introduction to that proto-history for the new Israel, full of the tabernacle imagery that forms a Yahwist cosmology, but also giving a universal scope to what, in itself (as Alice Linsley points out, for example) is a local dynastic history.
In that way, concordance issues are avoided because, unlike the proto-history, the creation account is ahistorical; the narrative drama begins, as it seems to, with the conflict in the garden; and Moses, being aware of that, becomes a wise author rather than a bad editor.