Chapter 30. Logical Replication slightly unclear

The following documentation comment has been logged on the website:

Page: https://www.postgresql.org/docs/12/logical-replication.html
Description:

I think the below snippet from
https://www.postgresql.org/docs/12/logical-replication.html reads pretty
clear for a native English speaker, but I have had someone tell me it was
confusing and I think I understand why.

Original:
"Logical replication is a method of replicating data objects and their
changes, based upon their replication identity (usually a primary key). We
use the term logical in contrast to physical replication, which uses exact
block addresses and byte-by-byte replication. PostgreSQL supports both
mechanisms concurrently, see Chapter 26. Logical replication allows
fine-grained control over both data replication and security."

Suggested:
"Logical replication is a method of replicating data objects and their
changes, based upon their replication identity (usually a primary key). We
use the term logical in contrast to physical replication, which uses exact
block addresses and byte-by-byte replication. PostgreSQL supports using both
methods at the same time, see Chapter 26. Logical replication allows
fine-grained control over both data replication and security."

I can't see any reason why to switch from "method" to "mechanism". Now,
perhaps "concurrently" is used to avoid some sort of consistency guarantee
with "at the same time". Speed of light and all that, but I am not convinced
the current version really solves that for people that want to take that
leap. If you look up "concurrently" on DuckDuckGo, the second definition
says "at the same time". I also added the word "using" to my suggestion,
which I think helps clear this up. Perhaps just adding using before
concurrently is a better solution for some reason but for people that are
not native English speakers I think the smaller words are better.

Also, is there a repo for the docs somewhere? The page says to submit this
form, and that's easy enough to do, but I wonder if it is the most efficient
way to handle simple doc changes like this.