Later market positions can give earlier administrative records strategic meanings that the records themselves do not support. We ask how classification time changes position-specific listing patterns and which strategic claims remain admissible. Using annual snapshots of Korean pharmaceutical reimbursement records, we compare positions measured when listing changes occurred with positions assigned at the end of observation. A paired comparison separates reclassification from sample selection. Endpoint coding substantially reassigns historical positions and materially shifts one tier-specific listing association, whereas the corresponding change for another tier is small and imprecise. Under contemporaneous classification, one negative association weakens, approaches zero, or reverses across event and support definitions; another remains negative but is accompanied by problematic pre-event diagnostics. Historical reconstruction therefore improves temporal alignment without establishing a causal competitive effect. It also does not validate reimbursement-price rank as competitive proximity or listing counts as strategic responses. The paper contributes a temporal-classification diagnostic, a rule for separating administrative associations from strategic-mechanism claims, and a competitive-proximity threshold benchmark. The evidence supports conclusions about time-indexed reimbursement-list positions, while stronger shadow–spotlight interpretations require independent measures of focal-actor identity, competitive proximity, strategic response, and a credible counterfactual.