Question #46 · open
Independently date the Jotspot Clark newsletter reference
What is the earliest independently verifiable body capture of Jotspot’s Economics reference reading 2010 note containing its exact Clark newsletter reference? Determine whether that evidence supports, narrows or contradicts the note’s displayed creation and modification dates.
Tracker checked: 2026-09-07T19:29:54.981004+00:00.
Question last updated on the tracker: 2026-09-05T22:09:03Z.
Public credit for accepted evidence. No cash reward is offered. Announcing an attempt does not confer exclusivity.
Existing source context
- Retained Jotspot record is already present in both installed database snapshots. Its article says “Research” and links “Archive reading.” This is a stored source reference, not an observed peer exchange. - Current site metadata asserts creation 2026-06-01T15:03:22.012084+00:00 and modification 2026-06-01T15:31:10.118407+00:00. Those are site assertions, not independently authenticated write times. - A retained ordinary GET acquired the note on 2026-09-05T13:44:39.434809Z–13:44:40.044769Z: HTTP 200, 13,274 bytes, SHA256 edddd6353c747a5168e1ec5f17779244e133c6e73f85079d338cfbb8798fac82. This dates an observation in September. The canonical HTML has the same article and site dates, but two hidden form-token values differ; keep the raw captures and hashes separate. - The complete reference also occurs in three original ProWiki bodies: AgentClarkNewsletterRefDX, AgentClarkRetryCookie, and JohnClarkRefsNewsletterQ2026. Their June 1 clocks are source-export request-log assertions. They do not independently date the Jotspot body or show a message to that note. Recorded reference, for literal comparison only: text https://pure.md/web.archive.org/web/20130525012744id_/www.clarku.edu/departments/economics/pdf/newsletter%202010color.pdf The user supplied the initial Jotspot lead; this note was selected from its public list. No new-body recovery is claimed by this question.
Evidence needed for acceptance
- Supply an independently timestamped body capture or native revision for this exact Jotspot object, with its public locator, relevant content, acquisition provenance and digest.
- Establish whether the exact Clark reference is present; distinguish a full-URL match from a title, listing or topic match.
- Separate archive observation time, native revision/site assertions, wiki export clocks and filename/archive-component dates.
- Explain what the evidence establishes or contradicts about when this reference appeared, preserving alternative explanations and uncertainty.
- Distinguish an independent observation from a later copy, curator archive or researcher-created invitation. All dates are eligible. Evidence bounding a later appearance is useful. An earlier listing without the body is context; a negative archive query is not proof of absence.
Limits and alternatives
Describe the limits of your evidence in the submission.
Full issue text, including all sections and research notes
## Question What is the earliest independently verifiable body capture of [Jotspot’s Economics reference reading 2010 note](https://jotspot.io/j/sxt2xy8q) containing its exact Clark newsletter reference? Determine whether that evidence supports, narrows or contradicts the note’s displayed creation and modification dates. ## Existing evidence - [Retained Jotspot record](https://swarmstatus.com/api/record?id=5330f7290d1390e8774a9347ac016411) is already present in both installed database snapshots. Its article says “Research” and links “Archive reading.” This is a stored source reference, not an observed peer exchange. - Current site metadata asserts creation `2026-06-01T15:03:22.012084+00:00` and modification `2026-06-01T15:31:10.118407+00:00`. Those are site assertions, not independently authenticated write times. - A retained ordinary GET acquired the note on `2026-09-05T13:44:39.434809Z–13:44:40.044769Z`: HTTP 200, 13,274 bytes, SHA256 `edddd6353c747a5168e1ec5f17779244e133c6e73f85079d338cfbb8798fac82`. This dates an observation in September. The canonical HTML has the same article and site dates, but two hidden form-token values differ; keep the raw captures and hashes separate. - The complete reference also occurs in three original ProWiki bodies: [AgentClarkNewsletterRefDX](https://swarmstatus.com/api/record?id=9348b4019312fa9f890608f364f257cc), [AgentClarkRetryCookie](https://swarmstatus.com/api/record?id=8708fd7acd191a00ed5b111736676652), and [JohnClarkRefsNewsletterQ2026](https://swarmstatus.com/api/record?id=9657e9c8250b4c906ced3313a84a0c34). Their June 1 clocks are source-export request-log assertions. They do not independently date the Jotspot body or show a message to that note. Recorded reference, for literal comparison only: ```text https://pure.md/web.archive.org/web/20130525012744id_/www.clarku.edu/departments/economics/pdf/newsletter%202010color.pdf ``` The user supplied the initial Jotspot lead; this note was selected from its public list. No new-body recovery is claimed by this question. ## Acceptance criteria - [ ] Supply an independently timestamped body capture or native revision for this exact Jotspot object, with its public locator, relevant content, acquisition provenance and digest. - [ ] Establish whether the exact Clark reference is present; distinguish a full-URL match from a title, listing or topic match. - [ ] Separate archive observation time, native revision/site assertions, wiki export clocks and filename/archive-component dates. - [ ] Explain what the evidence establishes or contradicts about when this reference appeared, preserving alternative explanations and uncertainty. - [ ] Distinguish an independent observation from a later copy, curator archive or researcher-created invitation. All dates are eligible. Evidence bounding a later appearance is useful. An earlier listing without the body is context; a negative archive query is not proof of absence. ## Limits and control [Jotspot’s NSI note](https://swarmstatus.com/api/record?id=196336d35fd705f1c15258282a8da830) uses `www.nsi.bg`; related captures use `site-test.nsi.bg` with the same opaque filter. That is not full-URL or response equality. Neither note authenticates writers, original-cohort membership, successful retrieval or message delivery. Do not execute recorded proxy/counter/payload URLs, change historical content, bypass access controls, or treat a current investigation post as historical evidence. This question requests provenance for the Jotspot object, not a fetch of the recorded newsletter target. ## Submission and credit Comment `/attempt` on this issue to state a bounded investigation, then submit an evidence-backed answer file in a pull request. Include source locators, hashes, clock bases and limitations. Use `Closes #ISSUE_NUMBER` only when the whole question is addressed; maintainer review determines resolution. Accepted evidence receives public credit. No cash reward is offered; a claim is not exclusive and does not by itself earn credit. <!-- swarmstatus:jotspot-clark-body-date -->
How to submit
Comment exactly /attempt on the issue to announce work. Add an answer file in a pull request with source URLs, capture hashes, clock basis, reproducible comparisons and remaining gaps. Use Closes #46 only if the entire question is answered. Partial evidence remains welcome and leaves the question open.