I don’t think it’s an issue. Rise of the Federation novels take place in the Prime timeline. The new ep showed the KIA personnel wearing a strange uniform that was not seen in 2254/“The Cage”. Thus, this episode must be one of those taking place in a post-“Toronto-Tomorrow-morrow-land” Bizarro universe.e
No. The new timeline has been around at least since
Enterprise, probably since "Encounter at Farpoint," because that's where the timeframe of World War III was bumped up from the 1990s to the mid-2000s. Just because we didn't
learn about it until last week doesn't mean it only
happened last week. I mean, Archer's reference to the Eugenics Wars in ENT is more consistent with mid-2000s than 1990s, unless the men in his family were really old when they had kids. And in retrospect, it's clear that Akiva Goldsman was working from the same Eugenics Wars chronological model in the SNW premiere episode and
Picard season 2 that he spelled out more explicitly in "Tomorrow and Tomorrow...".
And uniforms, set designs, all that, it's just storytelling. It's not "evidence" of an altered timeline any more than Kirstie Alley changing into Robin Curtis. It's dramatic interpretation. Altered timelines are
narrative changes, a function of the actual story, not the way the story is presented visually.
Besides, it should be obvious that the only timeline changes SNW has posited are in the
past, not the series present. Yes, the Eugenics Wars happen decades later now, but the Rigel VII mission still happened exactly as described in "The Cage," Pike is still fated to experience "The Menagerie," "Balance of Terror" is still going to happen, etc. The model they're using is that the alterations in the past are cancelled out by the 23rd century, so that everything is still the same,
possibly aside from minor details when convenient to give the storytellers freedom.
Anyway, no way in hell would an alteration to events on 20th- or 21st-century Earth change the movements of asteroids in space or the nature of the Kalar civilization on Rigel VII. That doesn't even make sense.
The only possible "fix" is just to ignore my brief mentions of Rigel VII. I got that part wrong. It's hardly the first time some detail or other in one of my books has been contradicted while being minor enough that you can just skip over it.