Reactive consistency restoration mechanisms (RCRM) maintain consistency between development artifacts by propagating repairing changes automatically. Currently, revision control systems do not distinguish between proactive changes intentionally authored by developers and automated reactive changes, making it difficult to understand and trace changes, as well as their interdependencies. It becomes unclear which artifacts in which revisions remain consistent, making it impossible to recombine, i.e., recompose and reuse them safely regarding their mutual consistency. In the long run, the inability to decide which revisions are mutually consistent and can thus be composed makes development a matter of guesswork. This work presents our ongoing research on augmenting the evolution history of systems that employ RCRM with consistency information. We propose a model for tracking relationships between proactive and reactive changes applied to development artifacts as well as consistency relat ionships between them. The benefit of our contribution is twofold: First, we make explicit which artifacts in which revisions are mutually consistent. Second, we enable the inductive expansion of consistency contexts, i.e., sets of mutually consistent revisions, by analysis of changes between revisions. Our approach allows to precisely determine whether specific revisions can be recomposed safely, enabling consistent recombination.