May Contain Nuts

Is it also possible that teams see him as a weak link because RB isn’t his natural position, so they focus their attacks down that side?
We’ve hardly conceded any goals, so he can’t be doing terribly still.

18 times in 454 career appearances according to transfermarkt
It's not like he's ever had a consist run of playing there though:
2012/13 - 1
2013/14 - 5 (no consecutive games)
2016/17 - 5 (4 games in a row)
2017/18 - 6 (2x 2 games in a row)
2021/22 - 1 (plus 2 appearances at LB)

So I'm putting this post together because since the start of the season there have been question marks on Knight starting at RB which have ranged from mildly questioning to outright ridiculing. 
But very frequently what gets missed is why Knight is starting there, why he's good at it and why it actually relies on his skillset. So I'm going to play devil's advocate and argue for Knight should start there.
Tactics
I think that Rosenior identified that a few things going into the season; we have talent in midfield, we likely have technical superiority and teams are likely going to sit back and try to counter or press and try to counter. And so he's built tactically from that point.You can see this in how our flanks are set up.
Wingers play high and wide and are both fast, phsyical and good 1v1. A compact opposition has to stretch or leave a man free. A team that presses always has to be wary of that threat in behind if they overcommit. Also it helps provide space in the centre for our midfield to take advantage of.
Meanwhile our fullbacks essentially play as midfielders when we have the ball. They tuck right into the middle operating from a much more central postion and given the responsibilities of a deep midfielder in getting the play going and supporting the play. This provides extra functional bodies in the build up play making it theoretically easier to pass through a press and it allows other midfielders to go take up dangerous positions further up field as they don't have to worry so much about the build up. Same applies to the wingers who can play high and wide because the fullbacks are functionally midfielders.
This isn't something revolutionary that Rosenior has done. In fact it's almost identical to what Guardiola has done in the past (who often would play midfielders like Delph at fullback).
Inverted fullback
The demands on this role are different that was is typically called for. They need to very comfortable on the ball in central areas, their passing needs to be good, they need to know what to do positionally when they are in midfield and they need that high energy to cover ground, support the attack and quickly get back into position. Functionally it operates a lot more like a wide midfield role on the ball.
Why Knight ? 
Simply put he excels at all of the above qualities is the primary reason whilst being sound defensively. There is a good reason why most our success in attacking has happened down the right. Playing him there essentially allows us to cheat and play another midfielder
The second reason is with a decent number of midfielders going into pre-season but no right back in sight with restricted dealings in the window. It made sense to coach someone into the role and Knight ticked the most boxes.
Why not X instead of Knight ? 
Odurah - Seems a decent prospect but looked a touch raw and shaky in pre-season. Likely isn't ready just yet.
Smith - This could work but Knight has more energy and crucially Smith hasn't had the same coaching time to coach him into the role.
Thompson - isn't as phsyical as Knight which could get exposed defensively and would need coaching into the role.
Stearman - This is a joke right ? He looks too awkward at CB on the ball never mind in midfield areas and would get exposed for pace.
Roberts - The role benefits from someone playing on their stronger side so they can open their body easier. Also needed at LB as Fozzy can't really play that role reliably.
New Right Back - Well yeah... but that's increasingly unlikely to happen but it won't be for a lack of trying.
Should he play midfield anyway ? 
Now that's a tricky question. Because we have a balance problem in midfield (at least some of the time) that you can point to Knight as a fix. And Id agree with that to a large degree that Knight as one of the three would help. The two counterarguments I might make are that problem might be better solved by playing either Sibley or a fit McGoldrick and by moving Knight from there you might be just shifting a problem rather than fixing it overall.
TLDR; The way we play calls for someone comfortable in midfield at right back. And Knight is likely the best at it we have.
(PS you may be able to tell I'm bored because I'm ill at home) 

Stearman can’t really move though
For an indication on how little he is trusted for a vaguely similar role, when we went to a back 3 v Barnsley, Forsyth played on the right hand side over Stearman despite being left footed.
Personally I think at the moment Knight is doing a very good job and while it may not get the best out of his skill set, the question is where he fits into a midfield that is already a bit bloated. In possession he is effectively playing as a central midfielder anyway.
In a way you could almost reframe the issue - if you were told Knight had come through the academy as a natural right back, would you see his performances this season and say “that’s a central midfielder”?
As an example, in one season Matty Cash went from a fairly middling utility midfielder to a £15m right back as a result of being moved there. He’s now an international. I think they have similar skill sets in that they are both very good athletes and intelligent footballers, but unlikely to ever be a really.
(sorry ended up being a much more general point than a reply to your post)

I'll agree it was a mistake to go into lockdown if you can tell me with any degree of certainty what the death toll from Covid would have been, had we not done so.

January 2025?

No
Its late, but just accept that I would have had a bloody decent responce to your post if I’d had the time and inclination.
You never like Ince.  He was the boss mate.

Yeah, he came round today. The piano sounds as good as new.

Easy solution, become a naturist.

Given Rosenior's comments there, I'd expect Knight to carry on at RB indefinitely. Probably time to stop calling for him to play further forward.

Easy solution, become a naturist.

I did post yesterday that the word critique would be more appropriate in this situation and continue to stand by this especially in view of posts like yourselves. 
I do also counter your observation that our current goalscoring issue is down to a lack of goalscorers which patently it isn't on the evidence so far of this season - due to the style of play we're adopting we simply aren't creating an adequate enough number of opportunities to score from. 

Easy solution, become a naturist.

The last 5 minutes was excellent, great save with Barkhuizen chance though Conor shouldve played Collins in, how stearman didn’t score we’ll never know. But apart from that last 5 mins we weren’t threatening. Shrewsbury we’re more threatening until that point despite having less than 20% of the ball. Cotterill will be delighted at half time.
Need to step it up, so much of the ball we need Sibley on. If we don’t get a win tonight then it’s our proper welcome to League 1. It’s games like these that will define our season
 
And Shrewsbury are f****** terrible 

Stop directing every set piece toward the front post FFS! They're not badly hit crosses it's a deliberate tactic.as far as I can see.
 
Oh and...
 
come on... 
 
I have to do it...
 
No reflection on his defending (or passing) today...
 
but...
 
Stearman! ?

That’s what happens playing Buchanan so much ?

It's similar to the debate that it's impossible to give 110%
People are obsessed with the maths behind it and looking at it from a pure statistical viewpoint, they take it far too literally.
It's just the same as saying someone "went above and beyond their call of duty" or similar.
You could give 100% of effort you are capable of giving at one point, but in doing so perhaps you expand your lung capacity? Next time you're called upon you're physically capable of putting in 'more' but it doesn't mean you didn't put in 100% on your first run, it's just that the metric has moved.
Alternatively you could try to push yourself further than your body is physically capable of safely handling and end up harming yourself as a result. Surely the line for giving 100% in that scenario is where it goes from being safe to being dangerous?
Maybe we should just say that it's impossible to put in 100% effort? I'm sure that'd go down well.

In which case the ratings system should only go up to 9.5.
As that's the highest anyone can go to though, that itself becomes the 'perfect score' and is in effect the same as giving someone a 10/10.
It's a stupid, self-defeating piece of pedantry to not allow 10/10 ratings.
Standards of performance that people/things are expected to meet change all the time, it's all relative.

People who say "It made me feel physically sick" or "sick to my stomach" as a reaction to a mildly disturbing sight, smell or thought. As opposed to what, mentally unstable? Sick to your forearms?
People who say "tunafish" instead of just tuna. Nobody says "codfish and chips", "salmonfish & watercress sauce" do they? Stop it! We all know what tuna is!

People who say "It made me feel physically sick" or "sick to my stomach" as a reaction to a mildly disturbing sight, smell or thought. As opposed to what, mentally unstable? Sick to your forearms?
People who say "tunafish" instead of just tuna. Nobody says "codfish and chips", "salmonfish & watercress sauce" do they? Stop it! We all know what tuna is!

In which case the ratings system should only go up to 9.5.
As that's the highest anyone can go to though, that itself becomes the 'perfect score' and is in effect the same as giving someone a 10/10.
It's a stupid, self-defeating piece of pedantry to not allow 10/10 ratings.
Standards of performance that people/things are expected to meet change all the time, it's all relative.