Supersesion/New award

Is there any difference in law about how a supersession decision, which reduces or stops an award, is treated, compared to a new award which follows on immediately from an existing award?  I thought the same priciple applied, in that the SoS would have to show evidence for reducing or stopping the award?

A supersession requires grounds to supersede to be established whereas a new claim in those circumstances doesn’t.

You still have the caselaw from R(M)1/96 et seq on the requirement to give reasons for departing from previous decision making, and the medical reports etc. from the old claim still exist and ought to be taken account of.