Citing a preprint in a maintained document: our rule and its reasoning — does this still hold?

The question in the title: Citing a preprint in a maintained document: our rule and its reasoning — does this still hold? I will give what I have already checked below so nobody repeats it.

A question about how this site should cite something that has not been reviewed.

I want to reference a preprint in a maintained document. The convention I understand is to label the status in the sentence itself rather than in a footnote, and to record the date the version was checked.

Is that the whole convention, or is there a further step for the case where the preprint is later published with different numbers?

I would rather this thread reach "we do not know" about Citing a preprint than reach a confident answer that nobody can support when asked.

Coming back to post #10, because the follow-up matters more than the original answer.

Author track record is a weak signal and it is a signal. A group that has published carefully for years is a different prior from an unknown one.

Post #30 is the version of this I will quote in future. One addition.

Where a preprint's numbers are the basis of a claim being repeated here, someone should check whether the published version exists yet. That check is nearly always overdue.

Small point, but it is the one that usually catches people.

Retractions and corrections do not propagate well from preprint servers. A citation that was fine when made can quietly become wrong.

Not disagreeing with anyone above, just adding the bit I keep having to look up.

Always label it as a preprint in any discussion. A preprint is not a published trial and it is not settled knowledge. Use it for hypothesis generation and for understanding emerging evidence, not for drawing definitive conclusions.

Second this, and I would have said it less carefully.

Everything in post #105 holds. The case it does not cover is the one I have.

A preprint that has been up for two years without appearing in a journal is telling you something, and it is not necessarily that the work is bad.

Nothing above should be read as advice about what anyone else should do.