What happens with the RSS feed when the court updates prior docket entries, such as to anonymize petitioners?

[habeasdockets]

This question just occurred to me as I'm reloading docket entries for a pro se habeas, where the court saw fit to change the case so that the petitioner is proceeding under initials. This is not exactly a frequent occurrence, but it's an important issue - people appearing pro se don't always think through the public nature of proceedings the way an attorney would.

When the court does something like this, the text for some docket entries gets updated by the clerks (at a minumum, the initial pleading's docket entry always has the petitioner's full name). For district courts that have an RSS feed, unless the change is made within 24 hours, it's not going to be part of the feed, is it? So they've implemented just enough free access that the petitioner's name gets entered into public databases, but then someone has to pay in order to get that corrected and make the docket anonymous again. It's another good argument against having paywalls, for sure. But is there any immediate solution?

[mlissner]

You're correct that they wouldn't send the updated records via the RSS feed to my knowledge.