The filename assumption
Treating a familiar filename as sufficient evidence assumes that a stable name preserves a stable meaning. Consider the illustrative export requirement approved from proposal-final.docx. Two weeks later, a revised proposal occupies the same path with different fields. Opening that file now cannot establish what the team originally approved. The name survived; the decision's evidential context did not.
Separate two questions
A proposed evidence record would connect the file identity to the observed version and an immutable excerpt. That supports reconstruction of the original approval. A separately labeled current-version link would support review of the candidate requirement. Historical quotations need an explicit historical label. Otherwise, readers may mistake past support for current support, or assume that an earlier approval makes later changes irrelevant.
When unchanged words mislead
Consider an additional, explicitly hypothetical case: the export table still lists an amount field, but a definition elsewhere changes its unit from euros to cents. The quoted table is unchanged, yet the requirement's meaning has shifted. This exposes a limit of excerpt comparison. Preserve the definitions needed to interpret the excerpt, and compare them during review. Reopen the decision when a relevant dependency changes; cosmetic edits alone need not trigger a new approval.
Run a discriminating check
Replace proposal-final.docx at the same path while changing one field. Ask a reviewer to reconstruct the original approval, locate the changed field, and identify the current candidate needing reconsideration. Then repeat with the hypothetical unit change to test whether contextual dependencies are inspected. Check access separately for historical and current views. Retaining provenance must not imply permanent permission to display evidence; current access rules still govern each view.
What this establishes
ABOLTUS is in development. This evidence record is a proposed adaptation of project interpretations of pre-requirements traceability and citation evaluation research. These scenarios illustrate design reasoning; they are neither reported customer outcomes nor fresh reproductions of the underlying papers. The practical claim is limited: a filename alone cannot demonstrate which evidence justified a decision.