Skip to content

Agenda: content/drafts/dt-overview/trust-chapter.tex

Review aid, not a gate. This report is evidence for a human judgement, never a verdict. A driver may read it back; no draft is blocked by what it says. See SOUL.md, and docs/ARCHITECTURE.md's "Layer 4: the review layer".

  • Draft: content/drafts/dt-overview/trust-chapter.tex
  • Command: python -m chitragupta.review agenda content/drafts/dt-overview/trust-chapter.tex
  • chitragupta 6.61.7

How to read this

This is a review aid, not a gate: every item below is evidence for a human judgement, ranked by class and then severity, never a verdict. unattended items are ones a future agenda-reviser may act on without asking first; every other item is surfaced for a person to decide.

Sources

  • Citation provenance: read
  • Verbatim scan: read
  • Citation coverage: read
  • Multi-source synthesis: read, no item class defined
  • TikZ layout check: not run
  • Uncited prose: read
  • Quotation integrity: read
  • Claim support: read
  • Prose (style_check): read
  • Dossier drift: read

Summary

  • 2 unsupported-claim
  • 16 uncited-claim

Findings

unsupported-claim

  • d61be667af63 [surfaced] (The argument): [@sample_dt_sync_2023] scores weak: In comparative trials, explicit staleness marking -- returning every value with
  • 972e8b4ccf59 [surfaced] (Synthesis): [@sample_dt_overview_2024] scores weak: The vocabulary of [...] sharpens the claim: what distinguishes a twin from a sha

uncited-claim

  • d4740a26c3ff [surfaced] (Operational Trust as the Limiting Resource of Digital-Twin Deployments): \label{ch:trust}
  • 79e394126f5e [surfaced] (Research question): \label{sec:trust-rq}
  • af107d98e386 [surfaced] (Research question): This chapter addresses RQ2: \emph{what limits the operational authority a digita
  • f5e4c97f0de3 [surfaced] (The argument): \label{sec:trust-argument}
  • 60febebc8dca [surfaced] (The argument): Three strands of evidence converge on the same answer: the limiting resource is
  • 4ff94cf6ac24 [surfaced] (Synthesis): \label{sec:trust-synthesis}
  • 36ae8634c962 [surfaced] (Limitations): \label{sec:trust-limitations}
  • 04afcf46eb82 [surfaced] (Limitations): The corpus is small and synthetic, its trust measures are behavioural proxies (m
  • 7feb3cb1fafd [surfaced] (Limitations): The claim this chapter defends is therefore directional: where the two have been
  • 82989c627ad8 [surfaced] (The argument): First, the synchronisation literature separates the two directly.
  • 03a10e02f0d6 [surfaced] (The argument): Accuracy was held constant; honesty moved; trust followed the honesty.
  • 9b3b3a830cf2 [surfaced] (The argument): Second, the longest observational record in the corpus shows authority following
  • c607c0693426 [surfaced] (The argument): Third, the same asymmetry appears at the analytics layer.
  • 902e6461ea7c [surfaced] (The argument): The recommended layered configuration buys accuracy where it is cheap but anchor
  • 2b4fb22c185b [surfaced] (Synthesis): Across all three strands, the mechanism that converts a working twin into a trus
  • 47496afd7b7d [surfaced] (Synthesis): Authority, in other words, is granted against the override log, not against the