Card rules · 2026-10-29
A Completed Hand Missing From the History View
A completion screen shows hand R18. The history list currently ends at R17. These observations establish that the two views are not aligned; they do not, on their own, prove that R18…
A completion screen shows hand R18. The history list currently ends at R17. These observations establish that the two views are not aligned; they do not, on their own, prove that R18 never happened.
Keep the evidence from both views
Record the hand identifier and the status displayed on the completion screen. Separately note the history view's time range, filters and observation time. A missing row might concern how a list is displayed rather than the status of the hand, but the exact cause should remain unconfirmed without evidence.
Do not create a second event in the explanation
If R18 later appears in history, it is still R18. The later appearance is not another completed hand. Likewise, two screenshots of its completion page are two records of a display, not necessarily two game events.
The completion screen and the history list are two views of the hand. If they disagree about what is visible, preserve the hand identifier rather than counting a later history entry as another completion.
The careful conclusion is limited: one view reports completion and another did not yet show the corresponding entry. That statement leaves room for clarification without inventing cancellation, duplication or a system fault. A stronger claim needs a record that actually supports it.
Keep discovery time separate from completion time
Suppose R18 is first visible in history at 18:05 but its recorded completion is 18:02. Those are different timestamps with different meanings. Moving completion to 18:05 merely because that is when the row was noticed would change the chronology. Preserve both: when the event is recorded as completed, and when the reviewer first observed the entry.