I am saying there is no evidence either way: they had contrasting experiences and one GP established this means that company has no standardized policies. Maybe they do, maybe they don't — I don't think we can definitively conclude anything.

So if you acknowledge the prior claims have more than literally zero credibility… then what’s the issue?

That I dont equally weigh them with all possible yet-to-be claimed things?

I object to your conclusion that "they have no durable principles": not sure how do you get to that from two different experiences documented with a single paragraph.

Because I can assess things via probability… without needing 100% certain proof either way?

This is becoming futile: this is not even about proof, but there not even being a full account of two cases you are basing your opinion on.

Obviously, you can derive any opinion you want out of that, but while I am used to terms like "probability" being misused like this, I've generally seen a higher standard at HN.

To each their own, though. Thank you for the discourse and have a good day.