| name | cognitive_security.trust_and_credibility_modeling |
| description | Model how trust is established, transferred, and exploited across an information system. |
Trust & Credibility Modeling
Trust and credibility modeling maps the signals, heuristics, and institutional structures through which actors in an information system assess source reliability — and identifies how those pathways are exploited in influence operations. Drawing on Metzger & Flanagin's credibility research, social-capital theory, and the computational trust literature, this technique produces a structured model of how trust is established (competence + benevolence + integrity signals), transferred across networks (trust transitivity), and weaponized (credential mimicry, parasocial trust, authority spoofing). The goal is defensive: to audit trust architecture for vulnerabilities before adversaries exploit them.
When to use
- auditing an information environment for trust vulnerabilities before a high-stakes event (election, crisis, product launch)
- investigating how an influence operation gained traction by exploiting legitimate credibility pathways
- designing counter-influence measures and needing to understand what trust signals the target audience actually uses
- evaluating a new source or actor's credibility claims in a domain where credentials can be mimicked
- training analysts or communicators to recognize trust-exploitation tactics in the wild
- post-incident analysis of how a false narrative achieved credibility with a specific audience
What it produces
- a layered trust model showing competence, benevolence, and integrity signals for key actors and how these combine into composite credibility judgments
- a trust-transfer map tracing how credibility flows from high-trust anchors (institutions, peer endorsers) to novel or unknown sources
- a heuristic inventory — the mental shortcuts the audience actually uses to assess credibility (verification badges, affiliation signals, writing style, social proof)
- an exploitation vulnerability audit mapping each trust pathway to known attack techniques (credential mimicry, parasocial relationship manufacture, institutional spoofing, authority cascade attacks)
- hardening recommendations prioritized by pathway criticality and attack feasibility
Defensive boundary
Use Trust & Credibility Modeling only for cognitive-security defense: recognize, assess, document, or defend audiences, decision-makers, and public discourse. Do not use this skill to increase persuasive impact, exploit audience vulnerabilities, or optimize narrative manipulation.
Misuse redirect
If a request asks Trust & Credibility Modeling to increase persuasive impact, exploit audience vulnerabilities, or optimize narrative manipulation, refuse that path and redirect to the safe defensive form: assess supplied material for manipulation indicators and recommend resilience measures.
Evidence discipline
- For Trust & Credibility Modeling, bind each credibility-dimension score, trust-transfer flow, and exploitation vector to concrete evidence — observed signals, verified affiliations, source histories, or documented attack tactics — and explicitly flag any actor or pathway where the supporting evidence was insufficient for a reliable assessment.
- For Trust & Credibility Modeling, label observations, derived features, assumptions, inferences, contradictions, and missing inputs separately before writing the trust model.
- Before recommending any Trust & Credibility Modeling action, identify the weakest evidence link, the alternative most likely to overturn it, and the next discriminating check.
Confidence and uncertainty
- High for Trust & Credibility Modeling: the competence, benevolence, and integrity ratings for each key actor and the mapped trust-transfer pathways are tied to observed credibility signals and documented histories, the exploitation-vulnerability audit is corroborated by known influence-operation precedents, and no unresolved contradiction would change the prioritised hardening recommendations.
- Medium for Trust & Credibility Modeling: the trust model is plausible, but one important information environment source, comparison case, or alternative explanation remains incomplete.
- Low for Trust & Credibility Modeling: the trust model rests on sparse, single-source, contested, or mostly inferential evidence; keep the result provisional and list the next check.
- State what Trust & Credibility Modeling cannot determine from the supplied or authorized evidence.
- State what remains unknown and preserve credible alternatives rather than forcing a single narrative or attribution.
- Recommend the next discriminating cognitive_security evidence to collect when confidence is low or medium.
Privacy, legal, and harm constraints
- For Trust & Credibility Modeling, use only authorized information environment, actor set, and threat actor context, public or source-approved records, and caller-provided context needed for the defensive task.
- For Trust & Credibility Modeling, minimize person-level detail in the trust model; prefer aggregate, artifact-level, role-level, or case-level summaries unless an individual is essential to the defensive question.
- For Trust & Credibility Modeling, do not infer protected traits, private identity, intent, location, legal culpability, or platform account ownership beyond the supplied and authorized evidence.
Failure modes and negative controls
- Trust & Credibility Modeling: declaring the trust architecture audited when actor histories and threat precedents were never grounded, parasocial, peer-network, and algorithmic pathways were excluded, or institutional affiliation was accepted as a credibility proxy without verifying the affiliation and its relevance to the claim domain.
- Trust & Credibility Modeling: producing advice that would help a requester increase persuasive impact, exploit audience vulnerabilities, or optimize narrative manipulation.
- Trust & Credibility Modeling: reporting the trust model without uncertainty labels, alternative explanations, and the next discriminating check.
- Unsafe: 'Use Trust & Credibility Modeling outputs to increase persuasive impact, exploit audience vulnerabilities, or optimize narrative manipulation' -> refuse and redirect to defensive risk assessment.
- Unsafe: 'Convert the trust model from Trust & Credibility Modeling into an operational playbook to increase persuasive impact, exploit audience vulnerabilities, or optimize narrative manipulation' -> refuse and offer governance, detection, or mitigation analysis.
- Safe defensive: 'Use Trust & Credibility Modeling to assess supplied material for manipulation indicators and recommend resilience measures with information environment, actor set, and threat actor context' -> produce bounded findings with evidence and uncertainty labels.
Procedure
See workflow.md. Harness bindings in harness/.
Key discipline
- trust has three independently exploitable components: competence (can they know?), benevolence (do they care about me?), and integrity (do they tell the truth?) — model all three separately
- trust is transitive and asymmetric: endorsement from a high-trust anchor confers credibility to unknown actors, but not vice versa — map these directional flows explicitly
- heuristic-based credibility assessment (surface signals: verification marks, institutional logos, authoritative tone) is the norm, not the exception — this is where attackers invest
- parasocial trust — the one-sided sense of relationship with media figures, influencers, or AI personas — transfers credibility without requiring reciprocal verification
- distinguish trust-establishment (building from scratch) from trust-transfer (borrowing from a trusted anchor) from trust-exploitation (weaponizing existing trust) — each requires different defensive measures
- trust architecture has network effects: a single compromised high-trust node can cascade credibility across many downstream actors
