The problem is simple: We don't know which sources and tools are used. The experts submits a report, talks about it, answers questions. It is never a hard factual check on where he is coming from.
The intentions, generally based on the party who requested the expert, are many times challenged by the attorneys.
In basis it's a reputation issue, is this a trusted expert. But only that does in my opinion not suffice. How many "mistakes" do you accept before a non-compliant expert is caught?
So yes:
And how do you do that? Do you ask... An expert?
That's what counter-expertise has to handle. Just one expert claiming something is a hard thing to trust.
It's the same thing that the lawyers in cases found that other lawyers were making claims based. on non-existing laws. Hallucinations by ChatGPT in that case. They did the world to verify. Found the issues. The lawyer gets fined (reputation damage).
There is no way around it, the work of verifying has to be done.
Comments
Horribly complex challenge. Totally agree.
The problem is simple: We don't know which sources and tools are used. The experts submits a report, talks about it, answers questions. It is never a hard factual check on where he is coming from.
The intentions, generally based on the party who requested the expert, are many times challenged by the attorneys.
In basis it's a reputation issue, is this a trusted expert. But only that does in my opinion not suffice. How many "mistakes" do you accept before a non-compliant expert is caught?
So yes:
That's what counter-expertise has to handle. Just one expert claiming something is a hard thing to trust.
It's the same thing that the lawyers in cases found that other lawyers were making claims based. on non-existing laws. Hallucinations by ChatGPT in that case. They did the world to verify. Found the issues. The lawyer gets fined (reputation damage).
There is no way around it, the work of verifying has to be done.