# The review is still planned for 14 October

Editorial correction, 24 October 2026. This interpretation uses the original synthetic source pack. It is authored teaching material, not a new agent run. The revised task instruction has not been rerun.

## What the sources actually say

In [input.md](input.md), tracker row T07 records Alex's review as Planned for **14 October**. Meeting note N02 records a **proposal** to move it to 16 October and explicitly says that no confirmed date change was recorded. The snapshot is 13 October 2026, 09:00 Singapore; later events are unknown.

The current planned date is therefore 14 October. Confirmation of the proposed move is unknown. That is different from saying there is no current plan, or that 14 and 16 October have equal standing as approved dates.

## Corrected wording for the update

**Coming up next:** Alex will test the tracker filters, currently planned for 14 October. Alex proposed 16 October, but no confirmed change is recorded. Keep 14 October as the plan while confirmation of the proposed move is pending. [T07, N02]

**Needs attention:** confirm whether the proposal to move the review to 16 October is accepted. This draft does not change the tracker or calendar. [T07, N02; Brief]

The [authored designed update](designed-example.html) now uses this interpretation. Its [source list](source-list.md) points back to T07 and N02.

## What stays in the record

The [13 October recorded run](recorded-run/report.html) and its [actual model output](recorded-run/output/weekly-update.md) remain unchanged. The model wrote “the review date is unknown.” That overstates the uncertainty: the proposed change is unconfirmed, while the existing plan remains visible in T07. Preserving this mistake makes the run inspectable; it does not make the wording correct.

The general distinction also runs in the other direction. If a source establishes an authorized owner's explicit withdrawal of approval, the earlier approval becomes history even if the tracker still says Approved. A later timestamp alone is not enough, and an unconfirmed proposal is not a withdrawal. The current instruction now makes those differences explicit; the historical run did not validate that revision.