Why were the Triarii differently equipped?

[Renatus]

Connell “does not pay sufficient attention to two fundamental distinctions: that between the literary and the historical value of annalistic historiography and that between its value as a source for the history of archaic Rome and its value as a source for traditions and beliefs valid in the late Republic.”

I find this statement rather confusing. Are the distinctions:
(1) the literary and the historical value of annalistic historiography; and
(2) its value as a source for the history of archaic Rome etc.?

Or are they:
(1) the literary; and
(2) the historical value etc.?

In the latter case, the historical value seems to break down further into its value as:
(1) a source for the history of archaic Rome; and
(2) what the late Republic believed to be the history of archaic Rome.