Unverified50% confidenceEventExact time
The first version of Afterhack's correction code copied the evidence of the old claim directly onto the new claim, causing the replacement claim to point to the old evidence, with confidence set to 1.0.
1
Sources
50%
Confidence
Medium-term (~90 days)
Relevance
10/19/2026
First Seen
Valid until: 1/17/2027
Sources
Related Entities
Related Claims
UnverifiedThe corrected error-correction workflow creates an independent fragment attributed to the Correction node and marked with a human source, replaces the claim to reference that fragment, and starts with confidence 0.0 while carrying confidence_kind.68% similarUnverifiedStale code examples cause agents to copy mistakes, so outdated code should be deleted, or clearly marked and explained as to why it is being kept.61% similarUnverifiedRegression tests should retain the original failing case (such as [12, 2, 1]) to prevent the same string comparison problem from being reintroduced in future refactoring.61% similarUnverifiedIn a failure classification table, only the 'new compiler fact' category (new error text appearing after a real edit) is worth retrying, because the error text constitutes new evidence.60% similarUnverifiedWhen a new fact is written and conflicts with an old fact, the contradiction-triggered invalidation mechanism marks the old record invalid_at rather than physically overwriting it, thereby preserving an auditable trail.60% similar
Cite This Claim
Stable URI
https://kongchang.com/claim/1065329API
curl https://kongchang.com/api/v1/knowledge/claims/1065329MCP
get_claim(id=1065329)