For what I'm aiming for, I don't think a sequence is necessary. A lot of the groundwork on Bayesianism has already been laid elsewhere, so I am able to restrict my discussion to the following areas:

• What is traditionally meant by informal fallacies?
• What are a few examples of these informal fallacies?
• How can we express these allegedly fallacious lines of reasoning in Bayesian terms?
• After expressing them in said terms, are any these informal fallacies actually fallacious?

If I narrow my scope to these questions, I think I can give a satisfactory overview of the answers in one post. A more thorough investigation (which I perceive that you are aiming for) is valuable and very well might need its own sequence.

But for now, I'm trying to aim very low. I hope that in the future, someone writing that more comprehensive post can say:

Hey! Remember that post PP wrote on informal fallacies as errors in Bayesian reasoning? I'm going to go much more in-depth than he did. Go read his post first as a primer so I don't have to re-tread covered ground, and then come back here for a more thorough analysis.