Something else that just occurred to me is that this is another potential example of a Chinese Sarvāstivāda āgamā-recension bringing something into the domain of potential dharma-theory, while that tendency is significantly less strong in the sutta-parallel.
The word “dhamma” never appears at all in the sutta-parallel (SN 43.11). It appears three times in the āgama. (Edit: five times if we count my eccentric-and-probably-wrong theory about the translation of 道 presented later).
“Asaṅkata” in the Pāli, “asaṃskṛtadharma/無為法” in the āgama, at least the Chinese recension, if a Sanskrit one exists I do not know, none were listed at SuttaCentral when I checked.
It is not a significant point necessarily, however this āgama seems to specifically go out of its way to frame Nibbāna as a dhamma, and to classify that dhamma (無為). This is completely absent from the nikāya parallel, where there is no reason given to conclude that the asaṅkata is a dhamma.