The card is not the commitment
An unchanged card outline can encourage a dangerous assumption: clicking Approve confirms the requirement now stored behind it. Consider the original illustrative scenario. A reviewer reads a monthly export requirement. Another edit changes it to weekly before submission, while the original approval button remains available.
The click shows an attempt to approve what was read; it does not show agreement to the increased frequency. A stable interface is therefore insufficient evidence of a stable commitment.
Preserve the decision boundary
Approval should identify the displayed revision and a fingerprint of the material evidence inspected. At submission, compare these with the revision and evidence being approved. If they differ materially, show the frequency change and reopen the decision. Preserve the attempted approval as an event when useful for audit, while withholding an accepted state for the changed requirement.
A timestamp alone cannot establish which content was reviewed. The explanation should connect the renewed check to the changed commitment.
When unchanged wording still matters
Now consider an explicitly hypothetical boundary case: the requirement still says monthly, but supporting feasibility evidence is revised to exclude the dataset being exported. Comparing wording alone would miss the changed basis for approval. The practical rule is to include evidence dependencies that can alter scope, feasibility, or obligation in the material fingerprint. If such a dependency changes, require review even when the sentence matches. By contrast, a font or spacing change with identical material inputs should not force a new decision.
A check, not a performance claim
Test the distinction by changing monthly to weekly between opening and submission, then repeating with only a display change. Add the hypothetical evidence-only change. Check that meaningful differences trigger a clear explanation and fresh review, while cosmetic differences do not. These are proposed checks, not reported outcomes. ABOLTUS is in development. The rule reflects a project-authored interpretation of traceability literature about preserving decisions and supporting relationships; it is not a reproduced study or a research performance claim. The counterexample warrants revising the stable-card assumption, without establishing the design's measured effectiveness.