A lot of the decisions surround 6e are confusing. The goal of it overall was to make the rules shorter (Since that was one of the complaints of 5e). Of course you'll run into issues with some rules like Multi-Attack being vague, but that isn't game-breaking.
But for a game that wanted to make rules shorter, it dragged out a lot of things. It doesn't talk about what a TTRPG is until the reader's gone through sections on lore and a short story. It's not the only edition that did this, but there are others that are better:
1e: p. 20, 15th page after Table of Contents (ToC).
2e: p. 10, 4th page after ToC, 3rd if you ignore a splash page of art.
3e: p. 8, 3rd page after ToC, arguably p. 6/1st page after ToC since that page goes over how to read the book.
4e (fanpro): p. 16, 3rd page after ToC, 2nd if you ignore a splash page of art.
4e (20A): p. 15, 10th page after ToC.
5e: p. 44, 37th page after ToC.
6e: p. 34, 28th page after ToC. 6e doesn't give a pass like 3e does for offering a roadmap on the first page since it insists that new players read through the fiction first before they get to the rules. This is arguably worse than not offering a roadmap at all, since a new player might conceivably skip through lore to get to rules (even unprompted), but now this tells them not to do that.
The editions in bold are the ones that did a good job of introducing what the reader is looking at early. You might say "well, a normal player would skip past the lore if they wanted to read the mechanics." Which seems reasonable, until you consider that the type of player who doesn't know what a TTRPG is would not know to do that, and therefore we cannot count on them to do that.
It's true that TTRPGs are mostly an oral tradition, but they don't always have to be. Sacrificing function for form by front-loading lore, world-building, and short stories is not a good thing. Every board game must be written as if it's the first board game someone's ever played. TTRPGs get a little bit of leniency on this, but only because just about every TTRPG out there commits this design sin. (Well, except the ones bolded above). I'm sure folks would also have an easier time introducing the game to parents, siblings, and friends if the rules were spelled out cleanly, and didn't require years of TTRPG experience to parse and make rulings on.
It's true that 6e isn't "as bad" as 5e with this, but the fact that you still need to go almost 30 pages to learn what a TTRPG is indicates to me that this wasn't a deliberate decision, it was incidental to trimming the fat in other places. The above should also explain why I think "better than 5e" is a very low bar when talking about different aspects of 6e. Sure it's "better than 5e," I'll bet that it's also better than the fantasy-heartbreaker game I made in middle school. 30% on a test is in fact better than 20% on a test. It's still bad.
This is just one aspect- I'm sure other folks can find places where it looks like Shadowrun "forgot" different lessons about game design. But the editions bolded happen to be the ones that were 1) After the very first edition of SR was published, and 2) When the bulk of SR's devs with "collective knowledge" were still working on the project. Even 4e 20A isn't as bad as the other editions, enough that it indicates to me that this was thought about, and that the decision to put fiction in before explaining TTRPGs was deliberate. You don't have to come to the same conclusions as me about when the right time is to explain what a TTRPG is, but you ought to understand why it's important.
At the same time: All the stuff with the pool embezzlement whatnot happened 10 years ago. There was less time than that in-between 1e and 2e, but FASA still started applying lessons-learned about RPG design. Why hasn't that happened here?