Is there something we could do to make it less disconcerting? We hoped the bright box with the original publication date would cover that. (This year we're making an effort to identify articles in our paper archives that were contemporary (or 'ish) design stories at the time, that now have some historical meaning. Until this republication they didn't exist in digital form. Thoughts?

Maybe put the repost date and the original date/re-publication date closer together and/or in the same place? I think part of the confusion is people glance at where they expect the dateline to be and then miss the other bit because it looks like a quote or ad box.

The "bright box" disappears for me and I'm sure many others. It's just a callout and by default is visually ignored with my "ad reflex".

Here's one obvious fix. First line of the article, italics: "Originally published x/y/zz".

They indicated at the event that it is compatible with third-party chargers that meet the Qi standard. Their own charger coming out next year makes some tweaks to the standard, that they intend to bring up with the organization and (so they implied) play nicely with the standard.

To be clear, "hacking" in this context doesn't mean breaking into other people's computer systems. It means solving a problem using technology in a quick, iterative manner.