Source freshness path from errata check to archive decision

A source summary should separate the original publication date from the latest update date because the two dates answer different questions.

Publication date tells when the source first entered the record. Update date tells when the visible guidance or document state last changed. A policy page, help article, or standards note can be old and still current, or new and already superseded. Collapsing the two dates into one line makes the summary harder to audit later.

The safe format is simple: published, last updated, checked by the summarizer, and why freshness matters. If a page includes a change history, summarize the relevant change rather than copying the entire log. If the page has no visible update date, say so and record the access date. If the document is historical, label it as historical instead of trying to make it look current.

This distinction is useful for government guidance, API documentation, product help pages, legal sources, and standards errata. In each case, a reader may need to know whether the summary describes the first release, the latest rule, or the state that existed on a past date. The answer affects whether the source should support a current decision or only a historical explanation.

A good source trail does not treat dates as decoration. It uses dates to show what kind of claim the source can safely support.

Update date and publication date should not be collapsed in source summaries

// COMMENTS

ON THIS PAGE