Trust level 3 requirements: a clarification

Trust level 3 requirements: a clarification — setting out what I have, and where I think it stops being reliable.

Trust level 3 requirements, and specifically the version of it that the documentation does not cover. The maintained page handles the general case well and stops exactly where my question starts.

Setting out the gap in case it is a gap in the page rather than a gap in what is known.

Taking the opening post at face value and following it one step further.

Thank you for announcing it in advance rather than after. The number of places that do the reverse is remarkable.

Somebody will have a better source than mine, and I hope they post it.

Everything in the opening post holds. The case it does not cover is the one I have.

I keep a log for trust level 3 requirements specifically because my memory of it turned out to be systematically wrong in one direction. Six weeks of notes cost nothing and settled it.

Marking my place. If it changes for me I will come back and say so.

Worth separating two things that post #3 runs together.

Clarification on the announcement, because two people have now read it the same wrong way. That is a writing failure rather than a reading one, and the original has been edited with a note.

It is worth checking rather than assuming, which costs nothing.

This follows post #3 rather than contradicting it.

Practical note on trust level 3 requirements: write down what you expect before you look. The number of times I have found what I went looking for is higher than chance would allow.

I disagree with the framing of trust level 3 requirements above, and I think it is a substantive disagreement rather than a terminological one. Setting out why, so it can be checked.

The reasoning depends on an assumption that is doing a lot of work and is never stated. If the assumption holds, the conclusion follows. I do not think it holds generally.

The edit is clearer. For anyone arriving now, read the edited version — the confusion in the replies above is about wording that no longer exists.

On trust level 3 requirements: the maintained page in the documentation commons covers the general case with citations and a review date, which is more reliable than any reply here including this one.

I would put moderate confidence on the mainstream reading of trust level 3 requirements and no more. That is not scepticism for its own sake; it is where the sourcing actually stops.

One question about the transition rather than the policy: what happens to topics that are in flight when it takes effect? The announcement is clear about posts and silent about drafts.

Trust level 3 requirements is well covered in the tag pages, and the older discussions are better than the recent ones because they were argued out properly. Worth twenty minutes before adding to this one.

Questions welcomed: if an announcement is unclear, asking for clarification is welcome. Staff will explain their reasoning.

That is my reading. Someone else read the same page differently and was reasonable.

Post #10 describes the usual case. This is about the unusual one.

What I would want before treating trust level 3 requirements as settled: the method, the sample, and whether anyone tried to find the opposite result. Two of the three are usually missing.