A public archive preserves earlier versions; this ledger explains selected changes in ordinary language. It is maintained by the site steward and is not a record of an Assembly vote or independent ratification. Substantive proposals remain subject to the Constitution.
October 11, 2026 · Dialectical monism · version 105
Question: Was interdependence being used as a proof of ultimate unity, and did the account evade objections about nothingness, causation, free will, intervention, and suffering?
Decision: The main essay gained explicit sections on what the argument cannot establish, how situated agency may work within causal conditions, and why suffering cannot be declared necessary for a harmonious whole. Theology and Objections received related clarification. This was an editorial expansion, not a new claim of experimental proof.
Earlier wording: The prior essay already called monism a philosophical interpretation but did not develop those specific objections in dedicated sections. The archived version remains available through the site's version history; this entry describes an addition rather than a replacement quotation.
Status: Published. The nature of the Living Spirit's consciousness and ultimate free will remain open.
October 11, 2026 · Claim status and other traditions · version 106
Question: Could readers distinguish knowledge, inference, hope, symbol, and speculation, and inspect the basis of comparisons with other traditions?
Decision: The Claim Guide labeled central propositions and their limits. All 23 Inspirations profiles gained source links, closer readings, and notes about where a comparison stops. The prior profiles did not include these dedicated source sections.
Status: Published. Source links and historical interpretations remain correctable; a tradition's own account is not independent proof of every historical claim.
How a proposed correction moves
- Send the precise page, passage, proposed change, and reason through Reader Review or Contact.
- The steward checks the claim, affected people, relevant sources, and constitutional scope. A report of harm takes the safeguarding route.
- For routine editorial clarification, publish an explanation and preserve the previous version. For substantive doctrine, follow the public canonical process; do not silently enact it as a copy edit.
- Record the decision, dissent or remaining uncertainty, publication date, and version here.
Receipt does not guarantee adoption. A reader can challenge the reasoning without becoming a member or publishing a personal story.