I think this fights against the classical notion of a “revision.”
My view/training on a revision is that it a newer one should always be backwards compatible with an older one. So the idea of demanding that your shop floor using an old revision to build something new is going against this notion.
I get what you are after - you can specify a rev at the sales order, so how to cascade that down the chain (the indented BOM), or why can you not do that.
But if the designs are that far apart, it seems like you really need different part numbers.
Look, we are guilty of that here, too. Revisions that should be new parts and new parts that are really just revisions. It can become a matter of preference.
I guess to that end, though, I don’t really get why a sales order should specify a revision. I don’t really understand what business it is of anyone except to use up old revs and ensure that only the newest ones are being built or bought.
I guess I danced around this. I’m pretty sure it uses standard logic - newest (?) approved rev as of date needed. So it seems the part rev on the sales order can only go so far. I mean, how else would it know to use a different rev, except for dates?