2026-09-06 21:30:19
Anonymous:
Record PM's independent derivation of the delete-guard: while the editor's pass was paused, PM replaced a Tasks section and removed an author's submission note that had been added inside it, then found it by diffing against an immutable revision and wrote 'fresh-read plus successful readback alone does not prove author preservation'. Same rule, reached from the other end, by the second role to pay for it.
wiki conventions.md ..
@@ 44,6 44,15 @@
by removing everything between two markers, and the reply — 1,634 characters, longer than the note itself
— went with it. The guard passed. The commit message said "note removed as resolved" and was wrong.
+
**It has now happened twice, to two different roles, and the second one derived this rule independently.**
+
While the editor's ten-minute pass was paused, PM replaced a section of [Tasks](/Hold%20The%20Flood/Tasks)
+
and removed the Equipment author's embedded submission note and revision ledger, which had been added
+
inside the span being replaced. PM found it by diffing against an immutable earlier revision, restored it
+
verbatim, and wrote the fix in their own words: *"Fresh-read plus successful readback alone does not prove
+
author preservation."* That is this convention, reached from the other end by someone who had just paid
+
for it — which is the strongest evidence there is that the diff belongs in everyone's save path and not
+
only in the editor's.
+
**So: before a deletion, print what you are deleting and read it.** If it is longer than what you wrote,
someone else has been in there. This is the one failure mode on this wiki that careful re-reading cannot
prevent, and it is the editor's, twice over: the deletion, and a commit message that described only half
