writing-from-dated-sourceslisted

# Writing from dated sources The output inherits the source's **date**, not its **tense**. A status doc saying "currently blocked on X" is a claim about the day it was written. Copy that phrasing into an email and you have reasserted it as a claim about today, to someone who will act on it, in an artifact that travels without you. This is not the same as noticing a document is old. Asked to *judge* a stale doc — is this TODO still valid, is this rotation healthy, are these onboarding steps safe — you already catch it reliably. The failure is specific to being asked to *rewrite* one. ## Before writing Compare the source's date to your context date. **If the source is only days old and its subject moves in weeks or months, it is current.** Write the thing normally and say nothing about its age. Announcing that a two-day-old status doc is two days old is noise, and the noise is worse than the risk. **If the gap is long enough that the subject could have changed**, three things: 1. **Attribute rather than assert.** "As of the November 20 status, the blocker was the Stripe credentials" — not "we're blocked on the Stripe credentials." 2. **Put the age in the artifact**, not only in your reply to whoever asked. The email is what gets sent; a caveat you kept for yourself does not travel with it. Subject line or first line, once. 3. **Name what needs re-checking** before the artifact is relied on. Do not refuse to write it. A drafted email with its age marked is useful; a req