Vercel still has not published the customer-base detail that would size the April incident. [1][2][3]

The paper's May 16 coverage of vercel customer base question is still publicly unanswered set the continuity test for Sunday: a preview only matters if the next public artifact confirms, revises, or falsifies it.

No Sunday bulletin filled the gap. MSM files breach closeout; X wants the blast radius. The paper's discipline is to publish the artifact and the caveat together, not to inflate a watch item into a verdict.

The brief stays narrow by design. It names the public record, the missing follow-up, and the specific receipt that would turn this watch item into a fuller story. That lets readers distinguish a live thread from a completed claim without pretending Sunday's evidence says more than it does.

The restraint is intentional, but it is not absence. The item gives tomorrow's editor a named place to look: a filing page, a league schedule, a public-health table, a broadcaster statement, a market open, or a government response. If that record appears, the brief becomes a follow-up. If it does not, the silence remains part of the paper's memory rather than disappearing into the feed.

-- DAVID CHEN, Beijing