Everyone talks about whether a system can verify evidence. Fair enough. But I keep thinking about a harder question: what if the evidence is valid, and the outcome is still wrong?
What exactly are we proving in systems like this? A fact? A status? Or just a decision someone made earlier and wrapped in technical certainty?
If one wrong assumption gets turned into trusted evidence, how far can that mistake travel? Who checks the logic behind the attestation? Who questions the categories, the eligibility rules, the source data?
And if multiple systems accept the same claim, who can actually trace where the problem began?
That’s the part I keep coming back to.