My memory, and that of others, was that it was the former.
The problem is, it may be unprovable. It may even be wrong.
People have screenshotted a bunch of incriminating statements, for posterity and to use if the authors delete them, which is usually the case. But it's doubtful anyone saved webpages, especially for things that people didn't imagine ever being an issue. Like the format of the rounds.
yeah, I tried using the wayback machine and it only had two archives, Nov '15 and yesterday. didn't have anything discussing who would be featured.