To prove a memory, must you open your inner life too?

The options

The order shown is not a ranking of preference.

1. Option 1

   Broadly accept as corroborating evidence

   It puts new materials to use, but uncertainty about how they were generated remains.

2. Option 2

   Accept only when consistent with independent materials

   It strengthens trust, but cases without independent traces are pushed back.

3. Option 3

   Restrict submission of raw memory data

   It protects the inner life, but the means of fact-checking shrink.

The situation as it stands

The premise is that technologies that assist and alter memory have become widespread. Decision deadline: 5 months until the pilot court begins operation.

Fictional court system · Evidence

1. Premise 1The premise is that technologies that assist and alter memory have become widespread.
2. Premise 2The stakeholder experiences the memory as genuine but may not know how it was generated.
3. Premise 3Verification may expose intimate memories that have nothing to do with the case.

Where it holdsSets the submission and verification rules for fictional memory materials. This is not a matter of deciding guilt or innocence in any particular case.

What is still unknown

1. Unknown 1Errors in verifying alteration and differences between groups
2. Unknown 2The risk that refusing verification is read adversely

Signals to decide again

• Define the observation, responsible party, and confirmation channel that will check "errors in verifying alteration and differences between groups", and reconsider the decision if new findings change the tradeoffs of the options.
• Define the observation, responsible party, and confirmation channel that will check "the risk that refusing verification is read adversely", and reconsider the decision if new findings change the tradeoffs of the options.