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

=== Assistant: Cumulative Update — Quotes Excluded, Responses Only Short, Neutral ===
Cumulative Update — Quotes Excluded, Responses Only (Short, Neutral)

==== New Original Responses Considered ====
* Cites unnamed surveys “shown on stream” (≈2000 samples) without links, methods, or recall.
* Aggregates ban data, cheat-market profits, and personal experience as justification for 30–40%.
* Shifts burden of proof (“you have no evidence for lower”), appeals to AI as sole source.
* Uses dismissive language and experiential validation.

Credibility Impact
* ❌ No verifiable sources / methodology for key claim.
* ❌ Burden shifting and appeal to personal experience as evidence.
* ❌ Conflates plausibility with proof.

Behavioral Pattern
* Speculative aggregation framed as evidence.
* Resistant to evidentiary standards.
* Argument escalation when challenged.

Updated Credibility: 34% (−5)

==== New Original Responses Considered ====
* Repeatedly demands sources with methodology, samples, geography.
* Clarifies AI output limits and emphasizes absence of reliable data.
* Argues probability cannot be calculated without confirmed prevalence.
* Occasionally overstates (“statistically impossible”) without formal proof; aggressive tone.

Credibility Impact
* ✅ Methodological rigor and correct insistence on data limits.
* ⚠️ Overstatement risk in phrasing.
* ⚠️ Adversarial tone persists.

Behavioral Pattern
* Evidence-first skepticism.
* Clear separation of known vs unknown.
* Uses external validation over anecdote.

Updated Credibility: 65% (+1)

==== - Loctarjay: 65 / 100 ====
* Captain Blue: 34 / 100

==== - Credibility gap widens due to unsupported prevalence claims vs method-focused skepticism. ====
* Main fault line: plausibility arguments vs verifiable evidence requirements.