Depends on the history and the organization. For example, technology companies generally keep very good, accurate historical records. Why? Because those records support their patent claims, which are fundamental to the marketability of their products. Materially editing a laboratory notebook, or an image of people present at a meeting, would be a firing offense in most cases.
While the two terms are often used interchangeably, there actually is a very real difference between spin and outright lying. It's a PR person's job to assemble a narrative, to emphasize or de-emphasize events so as to portray their client in the best possible light. Fine. That's spin. But a PR person who is caught in an out and out lie -- say, by presenting multiple versions of the same image -- cannot represent their client effectively. By being demonstrably untrustworthy, they invite close scrutiny of every aspect of the narrative they're trying to assemble. As has in fact happened in this case.
Put another way:
Whenever possible, tell the truth. It's easier to remember!
The outline of new better way still fits. The example you give is based solely on the fact that some organizations have a need for precise records of events etc. Good, so be it, but that would come under records, internal records. It would contain all data necesssary for their internal purposes.
A body outside of them which dealt sole in Historical record of the company or activity would have different information, some the same, but purpose different thus a different animal.
Thus they could direct anyone interested in them purely from an historical viewpoint to this outside body.
Thus their pr and promotions would solely be on what they produce now, offer now, all about now.
They shouldn't be involved in or responsible for explaining their history in detail, it's not their job
If you were self emloyed or run a small business you naturally expect to be asked about your products or services, quantity, quality etc. You naturally need internal records for various reasons but they are not history of the organization.
If all or even lots of people kept bombarding you with questions about the history of your business and then still wern't satisfied, they want in depth, in order, in sequence, every detail then you would wonder what's going on.
That's a historians job. Are you one? Do you employ one? No, and neither should you.
History and historical record is not a company or organizions responsibility. It's a publics responsibility. Hence librarys and things.
Any company or government or body employing a historian is not using them to find out their own history are they? No, it's because they want to know the history of something else.
Such are my thoughts.