In the process of writing very long answers, whether on meta sites or main sites, what is the best way to format content for future visitors?
For the record, I am not talking about the validity of such answers. Users contributing them are typically invested and well-versed in the workings of the sites. Examples of such answers are "canonical" posts on main sites, FAQ posts on metas, and election candidate responses.
I have ever seen two ways of dealing with such user-contributed reference material, each with their own pros and cons. Meta's own FAQ on bounties is one huge post with multiple headings (nested in some other cases), while this post on English's perfect aspect has multiple answers (each with their own headings) and a better approach to categorization with a Table of Contents. (Another, more elaborate example on editing on Chemistry meta)
A single enormous post is easier to maintain but harder to read and refer to. If the post gets longer, people become less likely to read it, since there is no way to jump to a part of an answer.
The several posts method allows for a ToC, easier referencing, and more comfortable reading experience because of the clear separation between multiple sections. They are harder to maintain, however, might end up with a bizarre sorting for most people (since sorting by "votes" is the default) and are generally more prone to chaos. Nonetheless, as the answers get longer, it seems they would work better with this method, risking getting close to the character limit, and disengage a reader too early to get a point across.
I am open to other alternatives. My question was sparked by a work in progress that would end up with well over 20,000 characters. Hopefully, such posts would become more manageable in the future, but I'm inquiring about the preferred method with the features available.