Making a digital choice reversible

Text A: an original contemporary practice extract.

I rearranged the shared recipe folder on my laptop and removed the older versions that seemed untidy. My brother later asked for the version with his handwritten substitutions, which I had replaced with a clean typed page. The old file was still in the deleted-items folder. Recovering it revealed that I had mistaken different uses for unnecessary duplicates.

We kept the typed recipe and the annotated version together, with names that explained the difference. Before another large reorganisation, I made a dated copy of the folder and agreed to ask before removing anybody’s additions. The copy did not decide which arrangement was best. It allowed us to change our minds without requiring the missing information to be remembered and reconstructed.

Text B: an original contemporary practice extract.

The club’s online register offered a setting that hid members who had missed several sessions. I enabled it to make the current attendance list shorter. The following week, another organiser could not find a member who had arranged an absence in advance. I switched the setting back and found the entry intact. A shorter view had looked like a more useful record until somebody needed what it concealed.

We created a separate current-session view and left the full register available. Before adjusting other settings, we wrote down the original choices and checked with the organisers who used the list differently. Keeping that record did not forbid changes. It meant that an unhelpful change could be reversed deliberately rather than followed by a second guess about how the system had worked before.

Both texts describe the responses to unwanted changes in the digital records.

What similarities do the responses to unwanted changes in the digital records share in these extracts? Use evidence from both texts to support your answer.