Some entries don't seem as exhaustive as others I've seen. For example, there are only 2 entries for "a-": a-1 is for Greek "without" and a-2 is presumably supposed to combine all the various Old English senses though it only mentions one (Wiktionary, for example, mentions 5: "up", "on", "with", "of", and one without etymology).
But even if we allow that mixture, we're definitely still missing the Latin ones:
ex- turning into a- (blame the French) is admittedly rare so might be out of scope.
ad- turning into a- however is extremely common and definitely should not be merged with the Old English derivations (even though "on" often takes a similar meaning). This is noted on the ad- page but it needs to be mentioned under a- too.
ab- turning into a- is less common due to only happening before a few letters, but is not even mentioned on the ab- page.
Not saying you're doing this, but I feel we've turned into a critical culture and not a supportive culture more and more. Criticism is not as helpful as people pitching in to help build.
But even if we allow that mixture, we're definitely still missing the Latin ones:
ex- turning into a- (blame the French) is admittedly rare so might be out of scope.
ad- turning into a- however is extremely common and definitely should not be merged with the Old English derivations (even though "on" often takes a similar meaning). This is noted on the ad- page but it needs to be mentioned under a- too.
ab- turning into a- is less common due to only happening before a few letters, but is not even mentioned on the ab- page.