Fine article overall, but starting from what srikes me as a strawperson argument does not appeal to me:

Too much discussion of the Industrial Revolution is myopic, focused narrowly on a few highlights such as steam and coal.

I'm a very casual reader in this area but this strikes me as at best very outdated. To not get laughed at in coversation, or to be read even for popular audiences, one for a long time has had to acknowledge that the causes and dates of the IR are uncertain and many, and posit something complex and overlooked, certainly not steam and coal. Even the English Wikipedia article https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Industrial_Revolution more or less reflects this. I'm probably missing something though, so curious what that is or why you took this approach?

Economist Robert Allen, for instance, has one of the best-researched and most convincing arguments for cheap coal as a requirement for the development of steam power.

I'd enjoy a pointer to that argument. Glancing at https://www.nuffield.ox.ac.uk/people/sites/allen-research-pages/ I'm not sure which paper it would be. Skimming his powerpoint on the British Industrial Revolution which I'd assume would be somewhat of an overview I see that cheap coal is mentioned -- as a factor in increasing British wages -- and the conclusion about the causes of the IR does not mention steam or coal (though British wages creating incentive to invent are) and are about as diverse and complex as I'd expect (and note the presentation is from 2006, presumably reflecting research from several years prior).

p.s. So that my first comment here does not read soley as a gripe, I'm a fan of progress [studies] and am glad this forum exists, I applaud your intellectual entrepreneurialism.