The claim
A8: “Decision-relative sufficiency ≠ historical accountability ≠ epistemic correctness. These are three distinct predicates on representations of an inquiry. We can now exhibit concrete models where they come apart.”
- Sufficient without accountable. CASE-082: a Bayesian agent keeping only p(Θ | E₁:t) updates as well as one keeping everything, and cannot say how it came to believe what it does.
- Accountable without correct. CASE-084: a community whose record is impeccable and whose vocabulary excludes the right explanation.
- Correct without sufficient. CASE-093: a marginal that is accurate now and cannot make the next update.
A5 drew the moral that matters for this record: “A representation may preserve the history of an argument without enabling good future decisions, and it may enable good future decisions without preserving a human-inspectable argument history. That observation prevents us from assuming the answer to our own research question.”
Why it is Active
Each separation is an existence result from a coherent construction. A non-implication needs nothing more.
What it bears on
- CLAIM-189 says fidelity is the wrong measure of a developing argument, and what a record can secure is traceability. This says traceability is not sufficiency either.
- CLAIM-190 says the record’s own anchoring measures cannot certify drift fell. CASE-084 is the same point about correctness, and A6 called it “a direct companion” to CLAIM-181 and CLAIM-190.
- CLAIM-250 is about accountability. A note of 2026-10-15 there records which of the three it concerns.
What it does not say
That any of the three is unimportant. A6 on CASE-084: “An accountable record may help identify errors once the excluded possibility is made available.”