There is a reciprocal quality to the relationships "<Recording> is a recording of <Work>" and "<Work> is linked to <Recording>" (in other words, <Recording> appears in the table under the Overview tab of <Work>).

Recently I was editing a recording and added data to the "Place: recorded-at" field, which includes a date. Afterwards, I realized that the corresponding work also has a date element in the reciprocal "Recording: <link to MBID>" field, but when I added the date to the Recording-Place relationship, it didn't occur to me to also edit the Work-Recording relationship to add the date there. I suspect this is a fairly common oversight.

It seems like it ought to be relatively simple for someone with a modicum of coding skill (i.e., not me) to write a script that would do one or both of the following:

1. When the date element of a Recording-Place relationship is modified, make a conforming change to the date element of the corresponding Work-Recording relationship, and vice versa.
2. Systematically evaluate recordings to determine whether there is a discrepancy between the date element of their "Place: recorded-at" relationship and the date element of the linked "Recording" relationship in the corresponding works, and/or systematically evaluate works to determine whether there is a discrepancy between the date element of each of their "Recording" relationships and the date element of the "Place: recorded at" relationship in the linked recording. If one field is null and the other has a value, set the value of the null field to match the non-null field. If there are values in both but they do not match, flag for human review.