Between 2026-08-16 and 2026-08-27 the descriptions of 15 products in our catalog were rewritten, 30 times in total. We know because a scheduled check reads each product page once a day, hashes the description block, and files a dated copy of the page whenever the hash moves. 12 of the 27 watched products left their description untouched in those 12 days. Two products account for 13 of the 30 changes. None of this is visible to a buyer who reads the page today, because the page a buyer reads is always the current one.
The check is narrow on purpose. It cuts the description container out of the page markup by tag balance, throws away scripts and styles, strips the remaining tags, and masks four counters that move on their own, namely demo downloads, the review count, the comment count and the activation count. What is left is normalised whitespace and then hashed with SHA-256. A new review therefore does not register as a rewrite, and neither does a download counter ticking up.
That narrowness was bought with a measured failure. On 2026-08-15 two runs 7 minutes apart reported first 2 and then 10 of the watched products as changed, because the hash still covered the whole page and the page carries rotating recommendation tiles that sit after the description in the markup. The hash now measures only what the alert claims. The seeding day itself is the reason our count starts on 2026-08-16. Of the 63 hashes we hold, 33 carry the date 2026-08-15, and those 33 are a mixture of first sightings and that afternoon of false alarms. Not one of them is counted above.
Scalping Robot Pro is the most edited page in the set with 8 changes on 8 different days, dated 2026-08-16, 18, 19, 20, 22, 24, 26 and 27. Logan follows with 5, dated 2026-08-16, 18, 19, 22 and 26. Four products changed twice, namely Lizard, Market Anomalies EA, Smart Gold Hunter and Smart Gold Impulse. Nine products changed once. Twelve did not change at all, and The Gold Reaper is one of them.
An edit is not a defect and we do not read intent into it. A vendor who fixes a typo and a vendor who quietly drops a performance claim produce the same hash change, and the hash cannot tell them apart. The number that is worth carrying out of this section is the frequency. A page that moves 8 times in 12 days is not a document you can cite from memory, and the claim you remember reading may no longer be on it.
A hash alone would be a dead end. It says two texts differ and nothing else, which is why every recorded change also writes the full page to disk under its date. The archive holds 51 such dated copies across the 27 products. Comparing 2026-08-19 against 2026-08-22 for a given product is therefore a file operation and not a research project.
The gap between 63 hashes and 51 files has one mechanical cause. The copy is named after the day, so a second change on the same day overwrites the first. All 12 affected hashes fall on the seeding day 2026-08-15, when the tool was run several times by hand, and none falls in the counting window. We store the pages. We do not yet publish a rendered comparison of them, and until we do, the answer to "what exactly changed" lives in the archive rather than on this site.
The clearest case in the archive is the one where the archive came too late. When we first read the Quantum Queen page on 2026-08-15 it already said the product was not available for purchasing anymore, and its updates page returned 0 entries. The version history was gone with the listing. The description hash we carry for it today is e3b0c442 and the rest of that string, which is the SHA-256 of an empty input. There was no description container left on the page, so the check hashed nothing and stored the hash of nothing. It is the only file in the archive that carries that value.
We still publish an audit for it, because we hold a tester run of version 4.4 and that run is deal identical to version 4.4 of Quantum Queen X, which is the product that replaced it. The lesson underneath is the uncomfortable one. An archive protects what it started watching in time and nothing else. For this product we were late, and being late costs the entire history.
The same check watches the updates page, which is where the version entries and their changelog texts live. Every entry we have ever seen stays in our file, and any entry that disappears from the vendor page is marked with the date it vanished. Across all 27 files, through 2026-08-27, there is not a single such mark. Entries were added and none was taken away while we watched.
That is a clean negative result and it is worth stating as one. The check exists so that a removal cannot pass silently, and so far it has had nothing to report.
Our audits measure the product, not the page around it, and they are public for every EA in the catalog. Your own tester report? The browser check is free.