Guidelines revision: what changed and why — one year on

Where I part company with the opening post, and it is a narrow parting.

Thank you for announcing it in advance rather than after. The number of places that do the reverse is remarkable.

I had read the opposite somewhere and cannot now find where, which tells me something.

The arithmetic in post #37 is right; the assumption feeding it is the part to check.

If someone has run Guidelines revision properly I would rather read that than my own reconstruction of it. Posting mine only because the thread has gone quiet.

Coming back to post #48, because the follow-up matters more than the original answer.

One question about the transition rather than the policy: what happens to topics that are in flight when it takes effect? The announcement is clear about posts and silent about drafts.

Confirming post #54 from a second method, which matters more than confirming it from a second person.

The version of Guidelines revision that I was taught turned out to be a teaching simplification. Useful, and not true in the way I had assumed it was.

Two questions I would want answered before drawing anything from the Guidelines revision data above: how were the cases selected, and what happened to the ones that dropped out.

The edit is clearer. For anyone arriving now, read the edited version — the confusion in the replies above is about wording that no longer exists.

The strength of my opinion here exceeds the strength of my evidence.

Answering the question post #73 raises rather than the one it answers.

Worth stating the null on Guidelines revision before we explain it: the observation may be nothing. That possibility deserves a sentence and usually does not get one.

One question about the transition rather than the policy: what happens to topics that are in flight when it takes effect? The announcement is clear about posts and silent about drafts.

Anyone with a larger sample, please post it.