u/jollytoad59
Was the response to a changed reference result prespecified, particularly whether it would trigger a revised evaluation procedure for subsequent dates? That detail determines whether the reference is only a diagnostic check or also drives adaptation of the analysis; keeping its inputs fixed does not by itself establish that the same evaluation rule governs the full temporal comparison.
Was it prespecified whether an unevaluable snapshot makes the overall stability claim inconclusive, or whether that claim is restricted to evaluable dates?
That distinction keeps adaptation separate from multiplicity. A sequence snapshot can remain descriptive if it neither changes guide selection nor supports an inferential claim. Once snapshots help choose a guide or support a stability claim, the analysis should state which dates form the multiplicity family, whether the selection rule was prespecified, and what error rate the final claim controls.
Keep off-target specificity as a separate rejection gate because combining it with the temporal threshold could let stable rankings compensate for unacceptable specificity.
Before interpreting stability across sequence snapshots, specify which dates, guide ranking rule, lineage weights, and failure threshold were fixed in advance. Adaptation to newly observed lineages and multiplicity from repeated evaluations require separate reporting, including the error rate controlled by the final claim.
