Editing Openai/69434f20-ed90-800d-ab60-60312c9de3dd (section)

=== Assistant: Cumulative Credibility & Behavioral Assessment — Update Short, Neutral ===
Cumulative Credibility & Behavioral Assessment — Update (Short, Neutral)
(Adds this exchange; cumulative from start to now, same criteria, balanced depth)

==== Observed Behavior ====
* Introduces a control-style comparison: asking AI without guided assumptions to test robustness.
* Correctly targets model dependency and sensitivity to inputs (good methodological instinct).
* However, overstates AI output as authoritative (“statistically near zero”) despite AI itself lacking ground-truth data.
* Continues hostile framing (“AI-Wife”, “fabricate lies”), reducing perceived neutrality.
* Assumes disagreement = bad faith, reinforcing escalation.

Strengths
* Consistent focus on encounter rate vs lobby prevalence.
* Valid criticism of hidden assumptions and narrative-driven prompting.
* Uses falsification attempts rather than only counter-assertions.

Weaknesses
* Treats AI’s lack of concrete data as proof against opponent rather than uncertainty.
* Uses absolutist language (“near zero”) where uncertainty is high.
* Repeated ad-hominem tone damages credibility perception.

Updated Credibility Score: 52% (↓ slightly from 53%)

==== Observed Behavior ====
* Continues to rely on custom AI-modeled outputs with layered assumptions.
* Claims to have explained mechanics, but inputs remain opaque at time of challenge.
* Frames disagreement as misunderstanding rather than addressing input sensitivity directly.
* Maintains strong confidence despite wide probability ranges.

Strengths
* Attempts to integrate game-specific mechanics (bounty funneling, convergence).
* Shows willingness (earlier) to provide screenshots, indicating partial openness.
* Acknowledges missing factors (“other factors I could have entered”).

Weaknesses
* Heavy dependence on AI extrapolation without reproducible transparency.
* Conflates cheater presence, kill likelihood, and personal experience.
* Confidence exceeds what available public data can justify.

Updated Credibility Score: 42% (↓ slightly from 43%)

==== - Core conflict: not math vs no math, but assumption control vs assumption stacking. ====
* Loctarjay is stronger on method critique, weaker on tone and overclaiming certainty.
* Captain Blue is stronger on mechanics narrative, weaker on evidentiary rigor and transparency.
* Both repeatedly escalate by questioning motive instead of narrowing scope.

==== - Loctarjay: Moderate–Low Trust (52%) ====
* Captain Blue: Low–Moderate Trust (42%)

Neither demonstrates consistency, neutrality, and transparency sufficient for high trust.