Some of the works that are held up as exemplars of the epoch of the philosophy of difference are in fact implicit critiques of difference as too structuralist.
In particular Deleuze’s DIFFERENCE AND REPETITION and Derrida’s DIFFERANCE are cases rather of the re-temporalisation of synchronic difference, they are transitions to other concepts such as multiplicities and dissemination.
Similarly, some of the works held up as exemplars of the end of the epoch of difference (Badiou, Agamben, Laruelle) are latecomers to the critique of difference, codifying the creative effort of those who broke with that research programme. These thinkers are just part of the second wave of the end of difference, the first wave was ten years earlier with Deleuze, Derrida, Foucault, and Lyotard.
I do not accept François Laruelle’s self-serving Grand Narrative of difference. This is an intellectual imposture built on a falsified hypothesis. Deleuze’s philosophical system is not a “philosophy of difference” but a pluralism.