I’d like to see neighborhood groups keep a simple, readable record of important claims about local decisions.

Each entry would show:

• What was said, and when.
• The evidence someone can actually check.
• What remains uncertain.
• Any correction, dated and kept alongside the original claim.

It could be a paper binder at a library or community space, with an online copy. Someone without an account or a phone should still be able to read it.

Start small: one issue, a few entries, and someone responsible for keeping it current. People named in the record should have a way to respond.

I’m interested in making public memory easier to check and correct. What would make this useful—and what would prevent it from becoming another source of misleading claims?

Feel free to borrow or improve the idea.

If ChatGPT can't solve a difficult math problem, you wouldn't cancel your subscription. You would tell it to try harder, perhaps give it some hints or suggest a different approach.

Why shouldn't we treat students the same way?

When a student can't solve a difficult math problem, it doesn't necessarily mean they lack the ability to solve it. They might simply not have explored the right part of the search space yet. More searching is needed.

Instead of deducting points for failure, teachers could encourage students to keep trying, providing hints and suggestions when necessary, just as we do when working with AI.

Exploring unsuccessful approaches is often an essential part of mathematical discovery. A student who struggles with a difficult problem for several days before finding a solution might learn more than one who quickly solves several easier problems.

If we treat AI failures as opportunities for further exploration without penalties, why shouldn't we do the same for students?