Define freshness rules for Ask Mantosh time-sensitive professional facts

Priority: High

Problem

Ask Mantosh answers from reviewed public evidence, but some professional facts can become stale even when the underlying document is technically valid: current employer/title, location, work authorization wording, project status, publication recency, and other time-sensitive profile facts.

Goal

Make freshness an explicit part of the knowledge contract so Ask Mantosh does not confidently present stale professional information.

Scope

• Inventory knowledge fields/documents containing time-sensitive facts.
• Classify facts as durable, periodically reviewed, or event-driven.
• Define a review/freshness policy for current role, location, work authorization, active projects, latest publications, and similar facts.
• Decide how stale or uncertain facts should be handled at answer time: omit, qualify, route to a canonical source, or fail safely.
• Add metadata or deterministic checks where useful instead of relying on memory/manual review alone.
• Ensure publication/indexing updates invalidate affected cached answers where required.

Acceptance criteria

• Time-sensitive public facts are explicitly inventoried and classified.
• Each relevant fact/document has an authoritative source and freshness rule.
• Stale professional facts cannot silently continue to be presented as current where a deterministic safeguard is practical.
• Ask Mantosh behavior for stale/uncertain facts is documented and tested.
• Production-state/publishing documentation reflects the freshness policy.

Start by inventorying the knowledge fields and documents containing time-sensitive facts, then review the production-state and publishing documentation mentioned in the issue. Define the classifications, authoritative sources, freshness handling, cache invalidation, and tests needed to satisfy each acceptance criterion.