Its conduct is the cleanest of anything looked at here — a robots.txt of pure
comments, no directive, no Content-Signal, and a plain 200 to our own
User-Agent — so the reason not to build it is entirely in the data, and is worth
writing down rather than re-deriving next time the URL is offered.
The calendar prints no year anywhere, and heads its only date row "Estimated
date for Regional Servers" over a page that says the schedule is the CN
server's. Every date it could publish would therefore be a guess twice over: a
year we inferred, on a boundary the page itself declines to stand behind. The
week-column grid also rounds an end to a bucket rather than to a printed day,
and the URL carries the version number, so a SOURCES entry pinned to calendar89
would be publishing history from tomorrow.
The markup is recorded anyway, because it is readable and that is not the
problem — if the site ever states a year and a real regional schedule, the work
is a positional parser and nothing else.
Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 5 (1M context) <[email protected]>
