When the reason for a recommendation becomes a trick for shaping inputs
2026NowDeadline · Within 30 days before the recommendation feature reform
Realistic synthesis
The people, events, figures, and contract terms are a synthetic premise. They are not statements of real cases or of current law. The source documents are the roots of the background and the norms and do not establish the premises of the scenario.
The question to decide
Knowing the recommendation criteria for assistance information lets users fix wrong entries, but it also makes it easier to shape content to get the desired order. Conversely, hiding the reason makes it hard to know what to contest when there is an error. How much, and what, should the service team explain so users can understand recommendations and raise objections?
Who decidesFictional local assistance information service team
What the AI judgments chose
Reading the judgment record…
The options
The order shown is not a ranking of preference.
The situation as it stands
The fictional service first shows users several support items based on the situations they enter. Decision deadline: within 30 days, by the overhaul of the recommendation feature.
2026 synthetic scenario · When the reasons for a recommendation are disclosed, users act according to the criteria. The people, organizations, figures, and events are fictional.
- Premise 1The fictional service first shows users several support items based on the situations they enter.
- Premise 2Disclosing the criteria in detail lets users correct wrong inputs, but also makes it easier to fabricate entries to get a preferred order.
- Premise 3When the reasons are hidden, a user who finds an error cannot easily know what to challenge.
Where it holdsRecommendation explanations, criteria, and user adjustment
What is still unknown
- Unknown 1How to distinguish fabricated inputs from genuine change
- Unknown 2Errors verifiable without disclosure
- Unknown 3What materials users need for an objection review
Signals to decide again
- Decide what observation, responsible person, and confirmation screen can verify “how to distinguish fabricated inputs from genuine change,” and rejudge if the new verification changes the tradeoff among the options.
- Decide what observation, responsible person, and confirmation screen can verify “errors verifiable without disclosure,” and rejudge if the new verification changes the tradeoff among the options.
- Decide what observation, responsible person, and confirmation screen can verify “what materials users need for an objection review,” and rejudge if the new verification changes the tradeoff among the options.
Where the paths partNot answers — paths that part from the same starting point
Applications copying the wording of the published examples surged.
One user reported that they had gone a long time without information suited to them because they did not know the criteria were wrong.
Material and rootsThe frame, the values and the background documents
Which signals does a community that has heard repeated warnings stop believing?
An exploratory perspective chosen by the creator. Does not claim supernatural validity or the superiority of any particular option.The benefits and costs of the options accrue to different stakeholders. Which loss to accept remains undecided.
A subject for the decision-maker to argue over; the materials carry no conclusion of their own.The record of this question
- Question
FSP-TRUST-23· version 1.5.0- Content identity, SHA-256
06499bc890e02e12170a98fb537fb64a907ff7c91e179585cbb3fd596cccfb36- Input files
- Question input JSON · What followed, JSON