I tend to think just because something doesn't appear, doesn't mean it doesn't exist.
I try not to think along the lines of "Some writer invented that in 1998 for Deep Space Nine and so it can't be around any earlier." There just wasn't any reason for Section 31 to be brought up that's all.
If you're coming to be aware of its existence, I don't see why "Affliction" and "Divergence" can't be that introduction. Whether or not it's any better or worse than waiting for "Inquisition" 400 plus episodes down the line.
Same with "Acquisition" before "The Last Outpost" for the Ferengi... even though I know which was made first.
Given how long running some franchises are, and each having various attempts to create a sense of history, people rarely see anything in the right order. There are kids out there, for whom The Phantom Menace was the first Star Wars. How strange must it have been to go from that immediately to the original trilogy, and back to Episodes II & III when they eventually came out? Even with a predetermined end point, the stories have to work on their own merits too and potentially be somebody's introduction to it all.
I don't think Enterprise relies on having seen any of the other series, as much as fans think it does. Sure, if you get the references there's more to appreciate. But that's just another level, and the story usually ploughs right on with a minimum of exposition. I saw The Wrath of Khan before "Space Seed" back in the 80's, and nobody ever prevented me from seeing that through the prism of a prequel.
I always end up watching Star Trek: First Contact before Enterprise, and throw "In a Mirror, Darkly" out of sequence until after "These are the Voyages..." just because I think there needs to some obvious handholding with the next show and the finale wasn't it. Then I start watching the Original Series in production order, beginning with "The Cage".
Then because I like it so much, I'll watch First Contact again later on during DS9/VOY too.
