Why are the slats not flush with the wing near the fuselage on a 330?

There are a lot of comments here talking about vortex generation and dog tooth edges, and I'm not saying this is not the reason, but I’d like to add that there are many things at play. There are plenty of examples vortex generators being placed on commercial aircraft from 737 wings, 777 tail, and most large, hi bypass ratio nacelles have at least one on the inner part (nacelle chine). Sometimes vortex generators are used proactively and selected because they are perceived to be the best option, like on the 737 NG/787, even on the 737 max the wings have vortex generators, although not as many…then there are times when they are added to improve characteristics once the airplane is finally built and flight testing can actually know what airplane does, for instance on the 737 NG tail which has a pile of vortex generators which we’re removed on the MAX when the tail cone and thickness of the stabs change in gain improvement in cruise drag characteristics. I don’t believe this is vortex generator with in intended purpose of flow improvement in high AoA, because this would only be “working” with the slats retracted, usually a very low AoA configuration…but that doesn’t mean it isn’t applicable, see AF 445 crash… It’s also far away from any control surfaces which is where you usually want to reenergize flow at high AoA to ensure maneuverability. You have to remember that A330 has multiple variants, with now two different engine options. So as designs start having variants being developed, it becomes a challenge to make minor changes without things starting to blow up and becoming major changes….see the MAX crashes. Despite an airplane being called a 737 or A330, there might be very big, nuanced changes that really make them two different airplanes, again see 737 NG versus the 737 Max…hell even the -10 Max has a much more complex gear, which has to fold up on its self to handle that airplane has to be lifted higher to account for the longer fuselage but still fit in the same hole in the fuselage …or the 787-8 versus the 787-9 which have the same wings aerodynamically, but are different structurally to save weight. So my thought here is that this is a result of the slat profile change in a A330 variant due optimizing the leading edge slat for some reason…maybe they needed to change the larger shape to get the landing and takeoff performance they needed to make the airplane profitable in the middle eastern market, which is dominated by high and hot conditions that effect performance, since they were stretching fuselage and increasing the MTOW. It could be an option that airline bought to have better takeoff and landing performance to trade for cruise performance because the routes this airplane flies isn’t as long as other A330 routes. It could be result of a design change when they were having slat structural issues which mean they needed to change the shape. In general, aerodynamics usually wins the battle when it comes to integration of systems, however it’s not the only thing that comes into play. 787 wing aero team was really pushing for a smaller wing of the -8 but the systems teams pushed back in order to have the space to be integrate the systems. Good thing they did, because the airplane was heavier than designed, and needed the extra wing area to meet all performance requirements. It still made %20 decrease fuel burn as promised despite the less than optimal design that the aero team envisioned. Yes, aerodynamics is complex and hard to understand…but when it comes to design, building, and operating extremely expensive airplanes, aerodynamic explanations are never the sole reason. Everything is compromise, and this slat looks like a compromise from my experience.