Trust is attributed to expertise, familiar procedures and promises kept about data and standards.
Familiarity can produce trust without guaranteeing correctness.
Speaker
Deep Dive 1: Digitizing a Trusted ProcessWatch passage →
DEFINITION USED IN THIS COLLECTION
Relational trust.
Confidence in people or institutions based on competence, familiarity, relationships and dependable conduct.
What it includes
Explicit explanations of why actors trust an organisation or process and how that affects participation.
Where the boundary lies
Do not infer truth, security or enforceable rights from trust alone; those have separate codes.
How speakers put it.
The definition above is used to organise this collection. The passages below show how the idea appears in discussion.
Evidence in practice.
All 20 coded passages →Analyst applies. Trust is attributed to expertise, familiar procedures and promises kept about data and standards.
Qualifies the boundary. Do not infer truth, security or enforceable rights from trust alone; those have separate codes.
Participants distinguish policy-bearing data exchange from an API that merely passes data.
Technical attachment does not itself demonstrate enforcement.
Speaker
Unidentified speaker
Multi-stakeholder, Sovereign, Agentic Workflows / Data Models, Evidence, and VerificationWatch passage →
Differences and limits.
No event-wide agreement is inferred from coding. Compare the attributed examples and boundaries; co-occurrence is not evidence of agreement.
Do not infer truth, security or enforceable rights from trust alone; those have separate codes.
Related concepts.
data security →
Confidence in people or institutions is distinct from controls against unauthorised data access.
Codes that occur in the same passages
Co-occurrence describes coding, not equivalence, causation or agreement.