zlacker

Just take it out. It makes no difference. You set it up so clearly in your first example.

"Most times A happens before B, but in this order it’s not guaranteed, so there is a possibility of {whatever}."

>>viccis+(OP)
That forces me to keep the phrase going though, which is my usual problem when both the A,B, and whatever are already long winded.

>>kace91+4v2
As I mentioned in a reply to the other comment, this often means you have your ordering mixed up.

As an example, here's what you original statement said (with some grammar corrected):

"Most times A happens before B, but the order is not guaranteed. Therefore, there is a possibility of {whatever}."

Here it is if you lead with the important outcome and provide the justification after, using a non-restrictive relative clause to add the fact that A often happens before B:

"There is a possibility of {whatever}, as, while A happens before B, the order is not guaranteed."

In my opinion, this is clearer in intent. It provides the important information immediately and then justifies it immediately after. The original sentence provides information without context and then contextualizes it using "therefore", which comes across a bit pedantic to me. I am a native American English speaker though, and the tone of prose does vary depending on the culture of the person reading it.