Indeed, that seems to be a red flag for both the traditionalists (for some reason they really need an oral transmission before Uthman) and the revisionists (clinging to late composition, I dont know why).
1/ Red flag for both because one way or another, they need that it be, one way or another, inside the framework Mecca/Kaba. (near or far, it is always there, even with the sole presence of "Prophet Muhammad"...) It must be there; even Dye cannot put him aside, meaning going outside it to explain "what happened ".
They need it as well because the Quran says that it is an oral proclamation. They cling to what it says (except Dye : https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u8aIOYq5UwY
2/ Late composition 1/ for the aforementioned reason, 2/ because of the formalism of the text which would attest writing layers. It is Wansbrough who has start the idea.
Sinai mentions a pre- 650 composition but doesn't develop the idea and its consequences, as if the potato is just too hot.
Sinai tells many things in his papers (I do not have his last (?) book...) changes many times of opinions, therefore is rarely clear, and especially never
draw the consequences of what he says (more or less revisionist) proclaiming that he considers the framework Mecca/Kaba/Zem zem historical.
There's many things strange in the field...