The docs described the release we run, not the code a reader clones

A documentation page can be wrong in a specific way: it can describe the software that is running in production, not the software a reader gets when they clone the repository. Ours did, for about a day. The page was a getting-started guide for a command that records the outcome of a piece of work and attaches evidence to it. One sentence said that a relative evidence path "is not the site's and is refused". That was true of the running release. It was false of the code on the main branch. We measured both, with the same command, run from the same working directory outside the site: The committed tree, which is what a reader clones, accepted the relative path and bound the record to the file under the site's artifacts directory. The pinned release, which is the version the plant actually runs, refused it with "outcome evidence must be an eligible single file under artifacts/". Both were true at once. The book stated only the second. How the gap appeared The fix that ma