I've been answering a few Cypher system questions recently and I keep encountering cases where the issue being discussed has a justification within the revised version of the core rulebook.
In my answers I've been clearly describing how in the revised versions of the rules x can be explained by y as they are nominally backwards compatible. And I'm encountering comments from the interlocutor, for example from the querent on this answer of mine: Action per target to initiate VS Edge
In my book, it's only a Third-Tier Speaker ability. And even if you have just one intellect Edge, it's at least better to use the action again and again than using Effort. And it's the same with all the abilities who use Effort to add targets but when you need to use one round per additionnal target. When you have something like this and appropriate Edge, Effort is useless. – ShubbNiggu 2 hours ago
This mustn't be a unique problem to the Cypher system though. There are several iterations of the burning wheel Gold core books which incorporate rule changes clarifications and other errata.
It's disingenuous to describe these revised works as new editions akin to D&D edition differences and create tags for minor iterations splitting the knowledge-base.
How do I explain in my answers that the answer may not be present in an outdated core rule book?
Am I right in using the most up to date versions of the rules to form my answers when a version is not specified?
If not should I present the updates from the freshest version, for the sake of completeness?