A record can help answer a specific question: is this participant likely to fulfill this commitment under these conditions? It cannot answer every question about a person.
Keep the concepts separate
| Concept | What it describes |
|---|---|
| Imprint | A contextual interpretation of contribution using Impact and Pressure under particular rules |
| Trust | An expectation about a particular commitment |
| Skill | Ability in a particular activity |
| Reputation | What others believe |
| Governance authority | Permission to influence a particular decision |
These may inform each other. None should automatically stand in for the others, and none measures human worth.
The hypothesis
Relevant evidence, with its context and uncertainty attached, may improve decisions more than an undifferentiated reputation rating.
A reported result, a customer confirmation, an independent check, and a disputed claim should remain distinguishable. A durable record can still contain a false report.
What could go wrong?
Incomplete records, different equipment, changing circumstances, discrimination, and selective reporting can make past performance misleading. Even a contextual score can become coercive if one Circle controls essential opportunities.
Linking local scores can recreate a global score. Selective sharing and meaningful data boundaries matter.
A useful next test
Compare how people assess a manufacturing commitment using an ordinary profile versus a small set of relevant, consented examples. Check calibration, decision effort, disagreement, and newcomer access.
Use no public person leaderboard. Provide a route to challenge claims and record corrections. A defect report should add context rather than quietly erase an earlier acceptance.
Status and revision
This is a concept note, not a reported experiment result. Maintained by the WebTree project team, led by Max Levitskiy. Initial public synthesis: 5 September 2026. Future revisions should state what changed and why.