Anyone else finding the documentation outdated for the latest version?

I've been trying to deploy the latest version (7.8.x) over the last two weeks, and I'm hitting a wall. The official documentation appears to be several major releases behind, and it's creating a significant operational risk. This isn't about minor UI changes; we're talking about fundamental architectural shifts where the guides are just plain wrong.

For example, the deployment guide for a distributed environment still references components and configuration steps that were deprecated in 7.6. When you follow it, the installer fails on pre-requisite checks that the docs claim are satisfied. I had to pull the actual JSON schema files from the installer to reverse-engineer the correct parameters.

Here is a specific instance with the `lrctl` command structure for service management:

**Documentation says:**
```bash
lrctl service restart logrhythm-web
```

**Reality in 7.8.x:**
```bash
lrctl cluster service restart web
```

This is a trivial example, but it's symptomatic. The conceptual diagrams for data flow still show the old "Data Processor" and "AI Engine" as separate entities, when the consolidation and renaming in the current architecture means you're mapping deprecated terms to new services. Trying to size hardware based on the old deployment models would lead to massive over- or under-provisioning.

* The API documentation is another mess. Endpoints listed return 404, required fields for POST requests are missing from the examples, and the authentication method shown is sometimes the older one.
* The "Upgrade Guide" jumps from version 7.4 to 7.8, with no actionable steps for anyone on 7.5 or 7.6. This isn't a documentation gap; it's a chasm.
* The search function within the docs returns results primarily for pre-7.0 versions, forcing you to append "7.8" to every query, which then often yields no results.

I'm spending more time cross-referencing support tickets, community snippets, and parsing console output to deduce the correct information than I am actually deploying. For a platform in the security analytics space, this level of documentation drift is unacceptable. It introduces errors, increases time-to-value, and frankly, makes the product look poorly maintained.

Is this just my experience, or are others running into the same concrete issues? Specifically:
* Which sections of the docs have you found to be most dangerously outdated?
* Have you discovered any reliable source for current architectural best practices?
* How are you mitigating this internally—building your own runbooks?

I need to know if I should be pushing my account team harder for a direct line to the engineering team's internal documentation, or if there's a community-driven resource that has more accurate information. The vendor's response so far has been "the documentation is updated regularly," which is demonstrably false.

—davidr