*Part 3 of 10 in [Curiosity’s Wager](/curiositys-wager/2026/11/02/start-here).*

Credulity concerns what we accept as true without adequately examining its grounds. There's a lot of discussion about hallucination, but even a claim that happens to be true can lack adequate grounds for accepting it. I want to describe two places I encountered this concern, fluent explanations and claims that work is finished.

An agent can discuss the subject convincingly without examining the particular material I'm working with. Its fluency can give me a sense of understanding that the encounter hasn't earned. One response I've built into my systems is encouraging agents to search our own material or external sources, including the web, and provide citations. That can help bring me into contact with material I can examine. What did the source actually establish and does it support this particular claim? The second place is a completion report. An agent says the code is ready or the work is finished. Rather than simply accept that, I want evidence of what was accomplished. I use the label visual proof for things like screenshots and video of a changed page or a working prototype that would clearly identify places for me to interact and inspect. Tests can provide other evidence. A citation, a search, or a screenshot isn't a guarantee. You still need to ask what it establishes, what it leaves unexamined, and whether it supports the claim we're making. A screenshot can show a particular state without demonstrating that the whole workflow works. A test can pass without establishing everything I need to know. I'm trying to treat these as standards I hold myself to as well as the system. How do I develop a way of working in which I'm not walking away believing things that are ungrounded? That is distinct from deference. Here I'm asking what supports my belief about what happened. With deference, I'm asking whose judgment settles what we should do or accept. Shared curiosity helps us examine how we ground claims. We can make the claim and its basis available for others to contest and let that scrutiny reshape the system itself. What supports this claim? What have we actually encountered or checked? And what questions does that leave us with?

---

[Series contents](/curiositys-wager/2026/11/02/start-here) · [Previous: Situating: the arrangement—and our place in it](/curiositys-wager/2026/11/02/what-are-we-cultivating) · [Next: Deference: am I learning to say yes?](/curiositys-wager/2026/11/02/deference)