> so the editors can add recommendations, version control
I assume this means the internal versioning features that Word offers, and not something like Git. I sympathize, I imagine the editing process was rough.
It's honestly not that bad if you have a good relationship with your editor. Git really emphasizes word by word or line by line changes; while publishing, at least in the earlier stages of working with an editor/agent, is much more focused on complete drafts. Getting down into the minutiae of word or line edits usually happens rather late and with a copy-editor.
Saving complete drafts, then receiving marked-up copies, worked fine for fiction, at least in my experience. They've been using Word for decades at this point so it's quite formalized. You just follow their instructions (even with file naming conventions). Trying to get a publisher up to speed on Git while your editing is usually just not worth the hassle.
Technical writing, though, is a different story. Managing code blocks is pretty essential in git, in my experience. But then you have specialized publishers for those.
I assume this means the internal versioning features that Word offers, and not something like Git. I sympathize, I imagine the editing process was rough.