Chapter 6 — A handwritten change is not a correction
Lesson map
Lesson 06 published. Map, example, EX022.
flowchart TD
P["09:00 paper omits SYN-002"] --> H["Someone writes SYN-002 on the paper"]
H --> C{"Was that write authorized and checked?"}
C -->|No| K["The paper is now altered, not refreshed"]
C -->|Yes| V["Record who approved it and how it was checked"]
The diagram distinguishes an edit from a new authorized copy.
Logical drawing
stale paper
|
+-- leave it and mark the request pending
+-- replace it with an approved later copy
+-- write on it so the confirmation looks allowed --> alteration
Learning outcomes
After this chapter, you should be able to:
- Tell an authorized refresh of a schedule from a handwritten addition.
- Explain why making the paper match the desired answer damages the record.
- State what evidence would be required before a later copy could replace the 09:00 paper.
6.1 Integrity is about the record, not the wish
Integrity means the information stays accurate and is changed only in an authorized way. Chapter 3 already warned that a second copy can be stale. This chapter looks at a different failure: a worker who wants to help writes SYN-002 onto the 09:00 sheet so that a confirmation no longer looks refused. The booking may really exist in the synthetic table. The writing still changes the artifact that was supposed to be the 09:00 snapshot.
After that pen mark, a classmate can no longer see what the paper said at 09:00. The lab in Chapter 4 would also change if someone edited PRINTOUT or the booking time so the program printed ALLOW. Both moves adjust the record to the preferred verdict. Neither move is a check.
6.2 Worked example
| Action | What is preserved | Verdict for this exercise |
|---|---|---|
| Leave the 09:00 sheet unmarked and mark the 15:00 request pending | The snapshot and the later booking stay distinct | Consistent with Chapter 4 |
Ask the owner for the reported 11:40 sheet and check its time and the presence of SYN-002 |
The new copy is still only reported until the check passes | The Chapter 3 condition |
Write SYN-002 on the 09:00 sheet in pencil |
The original snapshot is gone | Not a correction |
The third row is the lesson. Good intent does not restore integrity. If the owner later produces a real 11:40 copy, the penciled sheet cannot serve as that copy, because its time and its author are no longer reliable.
6.3 A limit
This chapter does not claim that Harbor Library forbids all handwritten schedules. A designed offline form, with a time, an author and a check, can be an authorized copy. An anonymous pencil mark on yesterday's printout is not that form. The exercise also does not show that anyone at Harbor Library did this. It is a mistake to practice against, using the synthetic sheet only.
Chapter 6 summary
Changing a snapshot so that a rule would have allowed the action destroys the evidence the rule needed. Pending, or a checked later copy, keeps the history. A pencil mark does not.
Chapter 6 exercises
EX022 — Spot the alteration
- Objective: Reject an edit that manufactures agreement.
- Input: The 09:00 sheet lists only
SYN-001. During the outage a volunteer pencils inSYN-002, Room 2, 15:00, and says, "Now the paper matches the table, so we can confirm." - Safe condition: Do not confirm a room and do not alter your own copy into the answer you prefer.
- Task: Say what the pencil mark did to the 09:00 record, whether confirmation is now allowed, and what you would keep instead.
- Expected evidence: Three judgments.
- Rubric: Credit only if the mark is called an alteration, confirmation stays refused on that sheet, and the alternative is a pending request or an owner-checked later copy.
Continue studying — chapter 06 of 20
← Chapter 05 · Course chapter index · Chapter 07 →
Continue to the next authored lesson.