Totally agree with you. Even a suffix like 923a would be enough to differentiate.
Same here. I was quite shocked to find the "build number" didn't actually reflect the build.
If it isn't really a build number, then it should be be a release number or intended release number and the build number should always change whenever the software is built.
That will, of course, mean that build numbers released to the public will have larger jumps and that build numbers could become quite large.
Resetting build number to zero for the annual would be reasonable and would help stop the numbers getting huge.