A question with the focus on
(To clarify, I am asking whether there was typographical error in the aforementioned chronicle)
gets two answers.
One answer is mainly wrong and spends a lot of time to show how many sources do not answer the question then goes on a speculative field trip to imagine footnotes where there aren't any, that a late source edition would have copied erroneously this non-existent footnote in the midst of a Roman numeral into an Arabic numeral, from where it would have been copied on. All relying on reading a real 'C' for a 'G' and that Roman numerals would have to conform to a modern school curriculum version of formatting, while attacking a range of famous history scholars indirectly as lousy copy acts despite them being known for their general reliability and meticulous workmanship.
The other answer identifies, locates and shows the original manuscript in question. Explains it and the likely historiographic motivations behind it.
Disproves with high-resolution facsimile pictures every relevant detail of the other answer and its fantastical, and personal, and anachronistic, and prescriptive, theories, with primary sources, in line with the accepted historiography and scholarship.
The 'C' is really a 'C' and not a 'G', obviously, as shown in a zoom, the original manuscript author did use an unfamiliar writing format for modern eyes, but no-one in all this used any footnotes to the effect the wrong answer speculates about, but the source edition scholars transcribed it absolutely correctly into printed books.
One answer is obviously wrong, one is correct.
One answer speculates from late source editions and apparently misreads a lot of the material along the way. The other answer shows you directly the only one relevant primary source in existence in a high resolution image from the original.
The wildly wrong answer gets 11 upvotes, plus the accept tick, the clearly correct answer stands with a net-negative voting.
Since even asking the question poster why he accepts such an answer with futile details was fruitless, I ask here, the regulars, the meta users, those who evidently downvoted my answer:
Why accept an answer even after the primary source manuscript QP asks about is presented to him — in the dismissed answer. Why is there an 'accepted' answer that is proven with primary sources to be wrong?
An 'accepted' answer that is shown on the same internet page to be utterly wrongheaded in its stubborn insistence on knowing better than eminent scholars, reliable source edition transcribers, knowing better even than the original author of the medieval manuscript: how to write down numbers.
Why downvote an answer that digs up a medieval manuscript and shows direct evidence? Why continue to upvote a wrong answer after seeing the proof for its wrongness?
Well, I mean disliking my answers is nothing new here for certain demographics and user circles. Also, I know perfectly well that the accept tick can be arbitrarily applied, per design.
But still upvote a competing answer despite being just shown how very wrong it is?
What's going on here?