Document structure

The document structure is somewhat misleading and/or not initially clear to a reader. As examples, I can name the following:

• Section "3. Overview" mentions the cross-device flows having one additional step involving the request_uri. Although this is defined in RFC 9101, this is not mentioned in any section of "5. Authorization Request".
• Section "5. Authorization Request" seems to start with the changes to RFC6749, then goes on to a feature, followed by example authorization requests. This is followed by many subpoints referenced in Sections "5.1. New Parameters" and "5.2. Existing Parameters". While this is not wrong content-wise, it does not provide the table of contents (toc) with an adequate overview of the specification hierarchy. Maybe consider sections 5.3 through 5.11 as subsubsections.
• Further on this topic, sections "6. Digital Credentials Query Language (DCQL)" and "7. Claims Path Pointer" are further examples of sections being dependencies and placed in an unusual TOC location. Maybe section 6 deserves to be its own section, giving its importance and novelty to this specification, but does the same apply to claims path pointers? In particular, section "7.5. DCQL Examples" seems out of place and wrongly named and confusingly placed (plural examples for a single example; section "7.4. DCQL examples" is not a subsection of "6. Digital Credentials Query Language (DCQL)"?

Start by reviewing the table of contents and Sections 3, 5, 6, and 7, including Sections 5.1–5.11 and the DCQL examples. Map the dependencies and examples against the surrounding specification text, then propose a hierarchy and naming that makes the structure and cross-references clear. Done means the TOC accurately reflects the organization and the cited sections no longer appear misplaced or ambiguously numbered.