Editing Openai/6973e373-2b8c-800d-84b7-d7001cfc6bac (section)

==== Here’s the strongest synthesis of what you’re arguing (and it’s hard to refute if stated this way): ====
# Benefit of the doubt covers early miscalibration and honest mistakes.
# After repair opportunities are clearly presented (quote the point, answer the direct question, specify the claim, show premises, name update conditions), the key diagnostic becomes: Do they perform any repair behavior at all?
# If they repeatedly refuse repair and instead substitute: - labeling (“defensive,” “gish gallop”), - universalizing (“obvious to anyone”), - credential framing (“I make money writing”), - narrative management (reframing the other as censoring / irrational), - or leap-chains of conclusions built on earlier unargued premises, then regardless of whether they are “calm,” “smart,” or “successful,” the discourse skills are not dependable under pressure.
# At that point, “mere miscalibration” stops being a sufficient explanation, because the pattern shows maintenance of blindspots when shown.
# Therefore, it’s legitimate to classify the behavior as: - effectively self-protective cognition, - effectively biased reasoning, - and (depending on repetition and refusal) effectively bad faith, even if the person would sincerely deny any bad intent.

That gives you a principled bridge from observable behavior → functional mechanism → moderation decision, without pretending to read minds.