On "unwritten precedent" (that used to be written, but is now buried in precedent somewhere) is that, unless there is a good reason not to do so, we tend to judge Truth or Falsity of CFJs based on the facts at the time the CFJ was called (i.e. ignoring changes that happened between the calling and the judging).
Sometimes it's ok to punt (e.g. "it's so complicated and self- ratification has sorted it out after-the-fact anyway, so I DISMISS the case as being beyond a reasonable effort to figure out what happened before self-ratification"). But that logic generally doesn't extend to True/False findings.
