The case
Two agents process the same evidence under a correctly specified model, observations conditionally independent given Θ. Agent A keeps the whole sequence and the reasons for each revision. Agent B keeps p(Θ | E₁:t). On E_{t+1} both reach p(Θ | E₁:t+1).
What it can show
That keeping justificatory history is not necessary for competent updating within a fixed model. A6: “Without it, we risk quietly identifying epistemic competence with the particular conception of accountability implemented by nucleation.”
What it cannot show
A6: “That justification history is unnecessary for other decisions, including auditing scientific misconduct, identifying procedural errors, revising the model class, or explaining how a conclusion was reached.” A10 §2C placed audit: the target changes from the world to the inquiry, and a posterior over (Θ, J_t) with J_t the relevant features of its history would serve audit too.