Official Edition is confusing. Which suggests there is also a Unofficial edition.
A copy cat fork? Or are those LTS releases powered by clones, trying to make a profit from TDF LibreOffice
A normal framework would be regular and LTS releases. However this
distinction not totally working out as there is not one vendor doing both
they Regular release and LTS.
So maybe (some sound really awful, but maybe it helps with brainstorming)
LibreOffice Regular Edition by TDF
LibreOffice Common Edition
LibreOffice Fresh Edition
LibreOffice Feature-rich Edition
LibreOffice Innovation Edition
LibreOffice Innovative Edition
LibreOffice Novel Edition
LibreOffice State of the Art Edition
LibreOffice Progress Edition
LibreOffice Progressive Edition
LibreOffice Advancement Edition
LibreOffice Latest
LibreOffice Active Edition
LibreOffice Modern Edition
LibreOffice Snapshot edition
Also bit hard to differentiate between 'branch' and 'edition'
LibreOffice by TDF is branched of the 'latest' while LTS being somewhat 'conventional'
Sometime I tend to 'drop' the explicit mentioning of 'Edition'.
Does it really need explicit 'Edition' to be called edition when materially an edition?
So the website/wiki etc LibreOffice is promoted as Latest supplied/ made available by TDF.
LibreOffice simply called LibreOffice. Prominently being presented as based on a 'rolling' release model/framework which might be more unstable,
with a 'fixed' snapshot schedule. So we tag it 7.0.2 for differentiation purposes (bug tracking/communication).
Without explicitly guaranteeing 7.0.3 to be better compared to 7.0.2. It often is, but not all they time.
Take current 7.0.2 bit a of a calculation disaster compared to 7.0.1
So would advocate a more or less Debian Development model. Rolling model with Cycles (smaller incremental) large major updates.
Where LibreOffice LTS powered by being framed a still/stable editions for more 'conventional usage'
Note also they distinction by 'powered' and 'supplied' or 'made available' which more passive, compared to
powered. TDF simply builds the 'latest' branch, doesn't do much development by itself.
And to make 'LTS' bit more attractive.. drop the whole stable/still edition at TDF.
People using LibreOffice should be on 'rolling'. Or use they archive to find some older version.
People don't have to upgrade. But TDF doesn't need to have a unmaintained 'still'.
Where as the still branch never had a proper reputation (at least in my world). I mostly pick fresh (or even master).
Replace that with a 'LTS story' powered by.. It cheap enough to be bought by regular users.
So or they contribute by being in the 'rolling' - permanent improving/regressing testing version. Or opt for the more reliable, older and paid LTS.
And we could put a note how to dig up they last release in a cycle. However not to be communicated actively as 'stable'.
What I personally conceive is a mess if of course 'powered by'. There are two or more LTS versions 
And I assume there are some difference between CIB <-> Collabora (except the name),
but I'm surely not knowing what that should be. I mean it, I really don't know!
Is CIB better compared to Collabora? Or visa versa? Is there no difference, but why two versions? I'm still confused here.
As a user I would think, did I buy the right one.
Regards,
Telesto