Ask which account to verify, not whether it's the only one - #1
Open
UBIpromoter wants to merge 2 commits into
Open
Ask which account to verify, not whether it's the only one#1UBIpromoter wants to merge 2 commits into
UBIpromoter wants to merge 2 commits into
Conversation
The BrightID domain asked "is this identifier this person's only account?" That question demands a disclosure BrightID has never demanded — showing up as an individual in one place has never obliged anyone to account for every other place they exist. It is also unanswerable, and it makes the honest answer "no" for a red-teamer's real account once they declare a test one. It now asks "is this the account to verify for this person?" — the document's own vocabulary, answerable from what an evaluator can observe. Five further edits follow from it: a sentence stating the evaluator is not asked whether other accounts exist; a clause noting the two answer directions are not symmetric; the §4 tier row; §10's decay illustration, which assumed a near-static answer; and four words in §12 so the privacy claim stays true now that strangers may answer. No change to scoring, thresholds, storage, or the API. +66 words. Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 5 <noreply@anthropic.com>
Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 5 <noreply@anthropic.com>
This file contains hidden or bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
1 participant
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
The BrightID domain asks "is this identifier this person's only account?"
It demands a disclosure BrightID never has: showing up in one place has never obliged anyone to account for every other. It's also unanswerable, and it flips a red-teamer's real account to no the moment they declare a test one.
Proposed: "is this the account to verify for this person?" — the document's own vocabulary, answerable from what an evaluator can observe. Confident it's the right question; less so the best sentence. Better wording welcome.
Five edits follow:
No scoring, threshold, storage or API change. +66 words.
Why now. The question text is nowhere in code or database, and production isn't in use — no migration, no history to rewrite. Once the node ships, "only" becomes the meaning of every rating.
Argue with this. It lets anyone answer without knowing the subject. Recognition-style wording was rejected — whose answers to listen to is what Aura already computes; hard-coding it into the sentence pre-empts that.
Full reasoning:
openspec/changes/primary-account-question/.