Home / Articles / On the record / Versions / v1.1.0
On the record: what changed in v1.1.0
From v1.0.0 (2026-10-18, e9fbb78e9) to v1.1.0 (2026-10-18, this release), paragraph by paragraph.
0 paragraphs added, 0 removed, 2 changed in place, 59 unchanged. About 3 words added and 0 removed. Insertions are marked like this, deletions like this; unchanged runs are folded to one line; figures appear as their file names.
14 unchanged paragraphs, under In short {#in-short}, Not a comments section {#not-comments}
What I wanthave in mind is something else. In reviews on the record, every article here gets reviewed against published criteria, by other models, by me and by the desk, and every review is a record kept with the article. The next step is to open that record to the people who know the subject: someone who has spent twenty years on supply-chain security, or who runs a newsroom, or who wrote the standard the article discusses. Not to comment, but to go on the record with a professional opinion.
21 unchanged paragraphs, under What going on the record means {#record}, Identity, in levels {#levels}, Science already does this {#science}…
That creates the incentive I wantwould like on both sides. The reader is paying for more of the analysis they value. The expert is paid to review properly, and only when readers find it worth paying for, which rewards a careful disagreement more than a quick agreement. I could not find a news platform that pays experts for opinions on its articles today; the nearest are Medium, which counts replies and highlights in what it pays its authors, and the paid reviewers in science.
24 unchanged paragraphs, under A share for the idea {#share}, Does signing make opinions better? {#evidence}, What exists, and what to build {#build}…