@A.fm. "by virtue of OP's question even existing on Law.SE, one can deduce that certain time limits apply." Yet another flawed conjecture of yours. One can ask on LawSE "what's the statute of limitations for the unauthorized hunting of a unicorn?", but that does not mean that unicorns exist. Now I see why you cannot grasp that accuracy of notes supersedes timing of their edits. I'll try one last time, in consideration that your confrontational, distracting remarks obfuscate the discussion:

A fact-finder is to scrutinize the object of the inspection. To overcome a fact-finder's suspicion that trivial edits suggests the substance of the inspected object might be distorted, the inspector is better off securing other evidence (contemporary and otherwise) for ease corroboration by the fact-finder. That should be the inspector's focus, certainly more than redlining PDFs of unedited notes, because the violator will try to attack the inspector's credibility anyway. Bye bye.

Wrong. OP asked the question knowing there is a time limit. Don't get salty with me because you don't understand.

LOL @ accuracy supersedes timing. I would suggest you substantiate that claim, but you've already demonstrated yourself unable to do so.

You must not know the definition of the word obfuscate, because my comments did no such thing. If they appear confrontational, that may be because in real debates (anywhere, be it a courtroom or a middle school competition) people have to back up their claims and do not get to do what you think suffices here: simply restating your contention again and again while offering nothing to support it other than assumptions of your own creation.