The prevalent interpretation of G\"odel's Second Theorem states that a
sufficiently adequate and consistent theory does not prove its consistency. It
is however not entirely clear how to justify this informal reading, as the
formulation of the underlying mathematical theorem depends on several arbitrary
formalisation choices. In this paper I examine the theorem's dependency
regarding G\"odel numberings. I introduce deviant numberings, yielding
provability predicates satisfying L\"ob's conditions, which result in provable
consistency sentences. According to the main result of this paper however,
these "counterexamples" do not refute the theorem's prevalent interpretation,
since once a natural class of admissible numberings is singled out, invariance
is maintained.Comment: Forthcoming in The Review of Symbolic Logi
