But things in CURRENT might not ever make it into STABLE or RELEASE.
I don't want to admit it, but that's a good point. They need to understand that they're taking a risk that support for a hardware may not make it into a STABLE or a RELEASE. Lots of hardware support is expected to stay in, because it's newer hardware that's becoming more common. It should only be for people who know what they're getting to, and readers need to know that a hardware or feature may be dropped.
There was a product I bought was meant for a production system, and it listed FreeBSD on the box. The hardware didn't work, because the FreeBSD I was using was a newer version, and GENERIC only had drivers for newer versions of hardware from that manufacturer. It was a RocketRaid card.
There was a time, where a developer on a mailing list told me something regarding a newer version of Bluetooth worked. This may have caused me confusion, because it may have been in CURRENT or STABLE, and maybe didn't make it to a PRODUCTION version. Either this, or the developer pointing to something preemptively, or something that was in a tree, but not fully functional.
A feature itself, can just as easily be about PORTS, than CURRENT, STABLE or RELEASE: it can also shift between these.
We have DEVELOPMENT in the forums:
https://forums.freebsd.org/forums/freebsd-development.34/.
I still think there needs to be considered exceptions for hardware and features of CURRENT, something along the lines of DEVELOPMENT. Obviously, with not as much leeway as for STABLE or RELEASE, and users need to know enough of what they're doing.
But even then, I don't use the latest hardware; I use what's good enough and what's common. The only interest I have in hardware is for a few things, which I wait for it to get into a Production release. I don't use CURRENT and STABLE anyway. I would use STABLE, but I don't feel like doing the install and reinstall, just to learn about that and write about it.