{"id":"source-trust-and-validity","title":"Source trust and the validity of a contribution","regions":["normative-change","shared-inquiry"],"question":"How should a useful contribution be treated when its source later proves unreliable or hostile?","formulation":"A source can build trust strategically and still produce beneficial ideas. Rejecting everything after discovering an adverse intention can destroy valid gains, while trusting the source wholesale can preserve hidden defects.","representations":[{"name":"Trust attached to an actor","affords":"A prior for allocating limited attention.","loses":"May reward camouflage or punish misunderstood contributors.","epistemic_kind":"reconstruction"},{"name":"Assessment of a particular contribution","affords":"Separates reasons from a general reputation.","loses":"Can be costly and still depend on inaccessible context.","epistemic_kind":"reconstruction"}],"tension":"Neither good reputation nor bad intention is a substitute for inspecting the contribution.","challenge":"Which dependencies actually fail when the credibility of a source changes?","development":"active","epistemic_kind":"reconstruction","evidence":["basis-source-trust-and-validity"],"next_move":{"text":"Create a claim dependency example in which a discredited contributor supplies one valid and one invalid step; revise only what the dependency analysis warrants.","epistemic_kind":"model_proposed"},"open_questions":["How should a useful contribution be treated when its source later proves unreliable or hostile?","Which dependencies actually fail when the credibility of a source changes?"],"formal_status":"open_problem","version":1,"content_hash":"f721d15c3fb9f1101fb341497cf9f5f0513702d4eb54a0154a59660fa4ee1b8c"}