{"id":"social-evidence-exposure","title":"Social information as evidence and as contamination","regions":["shared-inquiry"],"question":"When should a reader or model see existing votes and reputations while forming an interpretation?","formulation":"Social assessments may help resolve uncertainty but may also contaminate an ostensibly independent judgment. The proposal does not settle on universal blindness; it asks how exposure should depend on context and be recorded.","representations":[{"name":"Independent assessment before exposure","affords":"A visible baseline judgment.","loses":"Withholds potentially useful information.","epistemic_kind":"reconstruction"},{"name":"Assessment with visible prior evaluations","affords":"Uses the work of other evaluators.","loses":"Can amplify conformity and feedback.","epistemic_kind":"reconstruction"}],"tension":"Independence and informed judgment can conflict; model capability alone does not establish a reliable exposure policy.","challenge":"Which conclusion changed after exposure, and was the change supported by new reasons or only by a score?","development":"active","epistemic_kind":"reconstruction","evidence":["basis-social-evidence-exposure"],"next_move":{"text":"Run a paired evaluation with the same problem before and after exposure; record the exposure event and changed claims.","epistemic_kind":"model_proposed"},"open_questions":["When should a reader or model see existing votes and reputations while forming an interpretation?","Which conclusion changed after exposure, and was the change supported by new reasons or only by a score?"],"formal_status":"open_problem","version":1,"content_hash":"a712800005b59502631ec48705995dd34abde8961f3af423c105f0c93b1fafe3"}