Clear proof rules belong at the start

The design question

Suppose a friend says they can answer five questions in a row. The claim sounds clear, but the group has not chosen the questions, the answer source, whether corrections count, or whether someone can restart. A video arriving later cannot resolve those missing choices. It only reveals that different people imagined different challenges.

The Proovem Team recommendation is to treat ambiguity as a setup problem, not a voting problem. Voters should apply a standard; they should not write the standard after seeing who benefits.

A before-and-after rule

Weak version: “Post proof that you answered five questions.” Stronger version: “Answer these five fixed questions in order in one continuous attempt. No hints, searching, substitutions, or restart after question one. Submit one continuous clip by Sunday at 6 p.m. Eligible voters compare the answers with the linked source; incomplete footage is unclear rather than automatically wrong.”

The stronger version is longer, but every phrase closes a decision the group would otherwise make later. It also tells the participant how to protect the attempt from a technical dispute.

What to decide before inviting anyone

• The exact action and measurable finish line.
• The evidence format and whether edits, pauses, retries, or alternatives are allowed.
• The minimum information voters need and the private details proof should exclude.
• The deadline, time zone, eligible voters, and voting close time.
• The outcome for missing, late, or unclear evidence.

Where flexibility belongs

Clear does not mean inflexible about safety or access. The rule can name alternatives before the start, and participants should always be able to cancel rather than complete an unsafe or unwanted task. What the group should avoid is selectively changing the scoring standard after seeing the evidence.

When an unexpected situation exposes a genuine flaw, an inconclusive result and a revised rematch are often fairer than a forced verdict. The new rule should be visible before the next attempt.

Proovem note: Voters apply rules; they do not retroactively create them. If the standard was missing, fix the next challenge instead of pretending the ambiguity belongs to one participant.

A quick peer-review exercise

1. Give the full rule to someone who is not participating.
2. Ask them what exact result counts and what proof they would expect.
3. Ask what they would do with an edit, late upload, missing detail, or inaccessible proof format.
4. Revise any answer that differs from the organizer’s intent.
5. Show the final version to every participant before they choose whether to join.