When a score about a person falls, the first question the person can put is whether they changed or the scorer did. This paper argues that in ASI 2030's records the one clean opinion on a question about a change in a score goes to the answer that splits the change into the person's part and the scorer's part, and that publishing the formula does not by itself bring such an answer.
ASI 2030, a studio in the RISCON family, publishes synthetic records of an imagined path toward artificial superintelligence from late 2026 to 2030, in which a human auditor gives each judgment one of the four opinions of financial auditing. None reports a real event, institution or model, and their developments toward advanced AI are the studio's scenarios, not forecasts made here. The paper reads the eighteen records on the two axes the studio calls Measuring Human Worth and Work and Income, in both of the futures its story forks into.
The paper calls the two futures open and sealed, after how many of their records keep part of a judgment's grounds undisclosed: 2 of 9, and 7 of 9. In the open future the clean opinion goes to a judgment that runs the same inputs through two formulas, yet a public formula still ends in a disclaimer when the inputs that are other people's ratings stay closed. In the sealed future, two records' reopening lines say it is not even known what would raise or restore a score, and the opinions that bite come from data collected outside. To the debate on algorithmic recourse, the paper adds a question that comes before it: me or the formula.