Which filing version belongs in a historical agent review?

Identify the filing and its version

The SEC’s EDGAR research guide explains that an /A suffix marks an amended filing, such as a 10-K/A. The suffix identifies an amendment; the researcher still needs to read the document to understand its scope.

Create a version record with the issuer identifier, form, accession or filing identifier, reporting period, filing availability evidence, and relevant section. Keep the original and amended records separate. A URL labelled latest is not a durable explanation of which version a historical review used.

Use a hypothetical three-date timeline

Invent a report for the year ended 31 December 2025. The original becomes available on 20 February 2026 at 16:00 UTC; the research cutoff is 1 March at 00:00 UTC; an amendment becomes available on 10 March at 16:00 UTC. A researcher retrieves both on 12 March. For this exercise, assume those availability times have been established. Reporting period, filing availability, decision cutoff, and retrieval date are separate fields.

The 1 March review cannot cite the 10 March amendment as information available then, even though both concern the same fiscal year and are retrieved together. A current reader can note that later information changed the interpretation. Keep separate identifiers for the original and amendment, and retain the retrieval date as provenance rather than treating it as the document’s publication time.

Read the actual change

In one invented amendment, only a descriptive section changes. In another, a financial table changes. These scenarios require different updates to the review record. Do not infer a numeric correction simply from the existence of an amended form, or assume unchanged text has been independently reconfirmed.

For the altered table scenario, store the original value, revised value, units, period, changed passage, and amendment date. If a conclusion depended on that value, identify the affected claim. Do not rewrite the earlier rationale to make it appear that the later figure was known all along.

Keep a historical view and a correction note

Use a two-part output. The historical view states what version and value were available at the cutoff. The correction note states what the later document changed and whether the old conclusion would need reassessment with the new information. Label any reassessment as a later exercise.

The SEC API documentation says submission and XBRL JSON updates as filings are disseminated. A current response therefore needs filing-context checks before use in an older review. Preserve the particular source record rather than treating a refreshed aggregate as the original information set.

Review the record with a counterfactual

Ask a reader to reconstruct the 1 March information set from the worksheet alone. Then provide the amendment and ask which specific claim changes. If the record cannot explain both answers without replacing the old evidence, the version history needs more detail.

This is a proposed paper review, not an executed test. It also does not eliminate a model’s possible knowledge of later events. A well-labelled source boundary is useful evidence about the supplied materials, not proof that all historical leakage is absent.

Method, sources, and limits

The dates, document changes, and review are hypothetical. The SEC research and API pages were checked on 26 October 2026. This article does not interpret a particular issuer’s amendment, establish a legal disclosure obligation, or assert that an amended filing always supersedes the whole original.