Source freshness path from errata check to archive decision

When a live guidance page changes, archive or preserve the old reading before rewriting a summary that depended on the previous version.

Live guidance pages are useful because they keep readers current, but they are fragile as evidence of what was true last month. GOV.UK guidance and other public sources may expose change histories, while some help pages only show a current state. If a summary was used to explain a decision made on a past date, replacing it with the new reading can erase the context behind that decision.

A source curator should ask three questions before updating the summary. First, did the source change in a way that affects the claim? Second, does the old claim need to remain visible as history? Third, can the old version be linked through an archive, official history mode, version page, or dated source note? If the answer to the second question is yes, preserve the old reading and add the new one beside it.

The updated summary should not simply say “changed.” It should say what changed, when it was checked, whether the old source is still relevant, and what current readers should do. For example, eligibility guidance may need an old-rule note and a current-rule note. A product help page may only need a replacement note if the old behavior no longer exists.

This approach prevents two problems at once: stale summaries that keep misleading readers, and overzealous rewrites that erase why an earlier decision made sense.

When a live guidance page changes, archive the old reading before rewriting the summary

// COMMENTS

ON THIS PAGE