A system which never delivered an update after the event of concern would not fit the definition of eventual consistency (which promises that a system always resolves to a consistent state eventually, even if no further updates are made).
We generally discourage authors from including implementation details like this in proposals and instead focus on the semantics of the proposed feature. Implementation feedback is very much welcome but is generally out-of-scope for review threads and more appropriately provided on the implementation PR (except insofar as one is trying to understand whether a behavior observed in the prototype implementation is part of the proposed semantics).
This is a good callout of a potential line that could be confusing. My reading of that line, and @Philippe_Hausler can confirm, is that the value was not so much dropped from the sequence, but rather dropped from the output because the program terminated prior to the iterator picking up and printing the final update delivered by the sequence. (I agree this line is potentially ambiguous and worth clarifying!)