I am thinking of the progress of CZ-9(21) and the (latest acceptable) time of moon base building being the determine considerations rather than CZ-9(11) itself.
In a way, I am looking at it as similar to steam and EM catapult. Both were developed in parallel, both reached completeness. Whoever was ready first before the critical time point was chosen. Steam cat and CZ-9(11) are not the favoured ones but may reach maturity and even be used if the favoured one can't meet the absolute deadline. The question is what is if there is a absolute deadline and what will it be.
In case of CZ-9(11) being cancelled due to CZ-9(21) being fast, YF-130 and YF-90 will continue to finish their work as fully ready engines even if they have no rocket to be used. Cancelling them any time from today is too late and waste of all the works done. Actually, these engines are in the second stage (Engineering design) after Conceptual and Key tech phase. YF-135 is in the first stage. So continue working on YF-130 and YF-90 is doing the 2nd stage work for YF-135 which will significantly speed up YF-135.
CZ-9(21) is certainly the final shape of CZ-9. CZ-9(11) was the final shape at the beginning of China's moon program before 2010, but seems to be obsolete after China's space ambition has massively expanded to include many deep space missions, long term operation of permanent moon base and near earth super-structures. Reusable is the only choice.
I do think the ILRS moon base is an important determinant for the priority of CZ-9(21) -- for example, if they determine that there's a very important ILRS payload that just has to be launched by a certain year that the arrival of CZ-9(21) will not be ready for, then I could conceivably see them pushing for CZ-9(11) to continue being developed. That said, I personally think that if cancellation of 9(11) could help speed up 9(21) by a few years, and even if it means 9(21) would still end up pushing the ILRS moon base to the right by a few years, that could be an acceptable sacrifice. The ILRS base could have some of its smaller modules launched by CZ-5DY to plant an initial presence, and once CZ-9(21) is ready and VTVL capable, the boost in medium to long term expansion of the ILRS's size would be far greater than the initial short to medium term capacity that CZ-9(11) could provide.
(This is ignoring the other many benefits of reusable VTVL CZ-9(21) in conducting LEO launches as well that CZ-9(11) could not do).
I think the other important determinant for CZ-9(21)'s priority is the projected launch capacity of other nations in future era increments.
E.g.: how much annual tonnage would the US be expected to be capable of launching in 2025, 2030, 2035, etc.
I certainly do not think a nation's space program should be entirely dictated by competing up with what others are doing, but at the same time the geopolitical priority of certain projects has to be informed by other happenings in the world.
I suppose it is reassuring that continued development for YF-130 and YF-90 will still help to benefit YF-135's work, in which case at least the resources and time on YF-130 and YF-90 are not wasted.
The entire architecture of CZ-9(11) -- specifically the removable side boosters allow the 100t LEO CZ-9A and 50t LEO CZ-9B variants to exist -- are almost entirely invalidated by their commitment to CZ-5DY and its 70t LEO capability, as well as its resuable VTVL architecture that neither CZ-9A and CZ-9B offers.
That leaves us with the 140t LEO CZ-9(11) variant that is basically the only remaining CZ-9(11) variant that provides any sort of use, but it also doesn't have a reusable VTVL architecture, and the only thing going for it at this stage is if for some reason China really desperately needs the ability to put 140t into LEO or 50t into LTO by a specific deadline and aren't willing to wait a few more years for the much more future proof CZ-9(21).
But going into the 2030s and 2040s, I cannot see CZ-9(11) being relevant, while CZ-9(21) and even CZ-5DY offering substantially more longevity.
VTVL reusable first stages of:
- triple core CZ-5DY
- single core CZ-DY
- CZ-9(21)
Would basically cover all major launch categories.
Though of course, the virtue of CZ-9(21)'s design means:
- triple core CZ-9(21) with VTVL reusability could also be very viable if a need for it emerges.