It depends on whose interests are being served. In software, version 1.0 could be what made the project successful with the user-base while subsequent versions introduce features which help other entities such as advertisers & the interests of anonymous share-holders to extract profit & control from the user-base. Sometimes, popular features, such as an open api, are removed to consolidate the market as well.
I'll take a version 1.0 which is focused on reifying the natural God-given rights of man vs version 3.0 which reifies power of the State & Corporate "persons" over man.
A corollary, which I have discovered with Philosophy, maintaining software, performing large-scale refactoring, etc. and many have discovered before me...
The primitive low-level tech opens the space to what is possible. Improving low level components opens up a large space of possibility that is often inconceivable at the time the improvement is done. The reverse is disimproving low level components restricts the range of possibilities.
This is why we have seen so much churn in the front end & application libraries. More recent programming languages and front end & application libraries have sought to improve the low level apis to improve the development context of complex software.
A more evolved system (e.g. version 3.0) built with worse components is bound by the lack of quality of it's underlying components. So if version 3.0 Constitution is built with disimprovements in version 2.0 or earlier, it could be rendered worse than a version 1.0 built with quality components & quality first principles.
I'll take a version 1.0 which is focused on reifying the natural God-given rights of man vs version 3.0 which reifies power of the State & Corporate "persons" over man.