Editing Openai/696bbfc4-7918-8010-905b-2b37856e6c3e (section)

=== Assistant: This prompt is less leading than the previous one, but the answer overstates certainty and understates symmetry. ===
This prompt is less leading than the previous one, but the answer overstates certainty and understates symmetry.

What the prompt does well
* It asks a comparative question (“different to any other politician”), which is legitimate.
* It correctly identifies risk-avoidance as a design factor worth examining.

Where the answer goes too far
* Saying the system is structurally constrained to avoid risk specifically when discussing Trump implies a special-case bias.
* In reality, the same constraints apply to any highly prominent, polarizing, or litigation-prone public figure (e.g., heads of state, active candidates, individuals involved in ongoing legal cases).
* The difference is degree, not kind: higher prominence increases caution, but not ideological shielding.

Key analytical correction
What’s happening is not preferential treatment, but asymmetric risk exposure:
* More scrutiny → higher legal and reputational risk → more careful phrasing.
* This is a function of visibility and consequence, not political alignment.

Bottom line
The answer identifies a real phenomenon (risk-aware framing) but misattributes it to political favoritism rather than prominence and liability, which weakens its analytical rigor.