13d • General discussion
Faith absent of objective standards.
Reading Note (Context, Not Conclusion)
This essay does not ask the reader to assign motive, fault, or virtue to any person or institution. It exists to clarify a category error that often occurs when administrative records are encountered in public discourse: the premature assignment of “good faith” or “bad faith.”
The archive referenced here is intentionally not public-facing. It consists of procedural materials that may be evaluated on their own terms. Readers are encouraged to suspend narrative reflex and engage with the essay as a discussion of how we read records—not what we should conclude from
Good or Bad Faith Is Not an Objective Standard
When a citizen requests public records from an institution, a quiet but powerful process begins long before any document is read.
Not inside the agency.
Inside the observer.
Before evidence is weighed, before timelines are examined, before statutes are consulted, the human mind often assigns meaning. And meaning, in our cultural moment, is frequently collapsed into a moral binary: good faith or bad faith.
This essay argues that such assignments—whether negative or positive—are not objective standards at the intake stage of administrative process. They are subconscious overlays. They may feel intuitive, even responsible, but they are premature. And they interfere with discernment.
The archive at issue consists of a narrow set of materials:
A Right-to-Know requestAgency responsesA final administrative determinationA subsequent appealNothing more.
It does not assert motive.
It does not accuse wrongdoing.
It does not declare corruption or virtue.
It asks for documents that either exist or do not, were searched for or were not, were produced or were withheld. These are procedural questions, not moral ones.
The archive does not ask the reader to decide who is good or bad. It asks only that the reader consider records as records, and process as process.
The Twin Presuppositions We Carry
Most readers arrive carrying one of two unspoken belief sets—often without realizing it.
The negative presupposition assumes institutional resistance signals concealment, fear, or bad faith. Delays feel strategic. Silence feels suspicious. The requester is perceived as justified by default because institutions are presumed self-protective.
The positive presupposition assumes institutions act in good faith unless proven otherwise. Resistance is attributed to workload, policy, staffing, or legal complexity. The requester is viewed skeptically—persistent, adversarial, or politically motivated.
Neither presupposition is evidence.
Both feel emotionally reasonable.
Both operate prior to analysis.
And both short-circuit objectivity.
Why Good/Bad Faith Is the Wrong Question—For Now
Administrative process is not designed to adjudicate intent. It is designed to evaluate compliance.
At this stage, the only legitimate questions are:
Were records searched for?Were exemptions claimed and cited?Were timelines followed?Was the response complete under the law?Good faith or bad faith may eventually become relevant after process has concluded—after records are produced, lawfully withheld, or unlawfully denied. Until then, assigning motive is speculative.
To label either the requester or the institution as acting in good or bad faith at this stage is not discernment. It is projection.
Documents Versus Narrative
This archive does not ask the reader to trust me.
It does not ask the reader to distrust the institution.
It asks something simpler and more demanding: read the documents as documents.
An objective reader may discern patterns.
They may notice consistencies or contradictions.
They may conclude compliance or noncompliance.
But those conclusions must arise from facts in evidence—not from preloaded narratives about who “people like this” usually are.
Narrative feels faster.
Documents require patience.
And patience is increasingly rare.
The Cognitive Trap We Fall Into
Modern discourse trains us to decide who before we decide what. Once the “who” is labeled—troublemaker, whistleblower, professional, authority—the “what” is filtered accordingly.
This is not critical thinking. It is neurological economy.
The downstairs brain resolves ambiguity quickly to restore comfort. The upstairs brain, responsible for reasoned analysis, often arrives too late—after allegiance has already been chosen.
When that happens, evidence no longer informs judgment. Judgment selects evidence.
A Modest Claim
I do not assert that any individual or institution involved is acting in good faith or bad faith. I make no claim about motives, intentions, or character.
I assert only this:
Good faith and bad faith are not objective standards at the beginning of administrative process. They are conclusions—if they belong anywhere at all—that must follow evidence, not precede it.
The archive stands on its own.
The reader stands responsible for their discernment.
Whether one sees compliance, error, obstruction, or simply bureaucracy will depend not on loyalty, fear, or hope—but on a willingness to read slowly, suspend tribal reflex, and let documents speak for themselves.
That, in our time, may be the most neutral act left.
0
0 comments
Faith absent of objective standards.
