The disk format is weird, I had to boot from a GitHub built I built from source

The Idiot Alliance believes in whatever source about events is not directly contradicted by other sources about the same events, which is the reason why I mentioned that two of them were not matching on the first place. But somehow in your infinite Wikipedia prejudice you completely ignored Paterson Technology post, as if a source being the developer itself wasn’t authoritative enough. Wikipedia usually links references and articles don’t pop from thin air, I suppose you know that.

So we know from a primary source, thus almost set in stone (Than that source could be misremembering details or outright lying can also be a possibility, of course), that QDOS 0.11 was real and that it shipped. And we also know that it jumps to 86-DOS 0.33. There is no source that states that QDOS 0.11 itself was renamed to 86-DOS 0.11, just that the name change was done soon after QDOS 0.11 was released.

What I did found, however, is that Betawiki has an article about 86-DOS 0.2 where they pretty much claim with quite a bit of references that there was an intermediate release between QDOS 0.11 and 86-DOS 0.3x that already had the name change and includes EDLIN, but, most important of all, that it is not known what the precise version number was because it was not mentioned anywhere, it was just speculated to be 0.2: https://betawiki.net/index.php?title=86-DOS_0.2&oldid=232663#Naming

So it could be possible than that colloquially named 0.2 version does not exists but is actually this 0.11, which is NOT simply QDOS 0.11 with a name change since it has EDLIN, which was released later. I wouldn’t be surprised if this early on there was sloppy versioning and they forgot to change the version number after the renaming (Or pretend to reset versioning for 86-DOS and start from 0.1, as the disk says, and not continuing from 0.11+), which is the reason why I don’t believe in the actual binaries without an authoritative source to fill the info void 🙂

The Idiot Alliance strikes again.

could it run a 386 dos extender and DooM would be the more realistic question… Although there is no hard disk support..

“By the end of August 1980, QDOS 0.11 worked well and was being shipped. It didn’t stay QDOS very long, and not many copies were distributed.”

…then it jumps to 86-DOS by the time of 0.33…

“In December 1980, Paterson and company came out with 86-DOS, 0.33, which had significant improvements over QDOS.”

Also, the Wikipedia page mentions that EDLIN was added in 86-DOS 0.2, and your file list of 0.11 includes it.
So, based on the known info there are a few contradictions already. Either:
Wikipedia and Paterson Technology post are wrong in both name change timeline and version features.
It is NOT 0.11 but instead 0.2, but the version number wasn’t updated for… reasons.