I think this practice, we can provide users with a more seamless and user-friendly experience, ultimately contributing to the overall quality and usability of their packages.

I believe it was decided some time ago to attach packages used in examples rather than prefix their functions. This is in line with a lot of existing R documentation. Specifically, nobody ever prefixes the package the example is in. I guess in your example this would beteal.modules.general.

Admittedly, some examples use unexported functions from other packages and so they muse use:::, which I am not a fan of, but apparently there is no other way.

This is rarely used in other R packages outside our family of packages but here in our case I believe it make sense to prefix functions with packages. The main reason is that there are multiple packages used to run the example, hence this is helpful to understand which parts of the flow comes from which supporting package. Also there is one benefit, that if a code is shared, without the calls to library() [as it often happens for new/beginner R users] the code would still work. Lastly, if one of the packages is missing, you see which package is needed to be installed, if missing. I tend to believe people copy examples from online vignettes or forums and that's the use case you see prefixing will help. For regular manual pages it's less visible, as you need to install all Imports of the package to launch the documentation. But keep this online vignettes and forums in mind!