This piece is a consequence of Institutional Frustration; Misinformation and

Academic Authority and exists to assert a need for self steering dragnets to
catch misinformation and agents propagating misinformation. This piece
will specifically be in the context of misinformation as it relates to brand
damage in marketing and public relations. To quantify this more specifically,
this is information which does not align to reality with adequate fidelity
when put to verification, this information is about a given subject as is
actively being propagated within an institution.

Access as Instrument
When an article of misinformation is identified by a process or agent within
the agent propagating the misinformation should be isolated akin to a
quarantine so a representation of the misinformation can be constructed,
just as with a virus, discovering the composition of the misinformation and
its source is the priority in this endeavour, then alleviating the quarantined
agent of this misinformation and rectifying their perception. This is
discussed further in the next section "Demanding Grounding".

This is one means in which access can be treated as an instrument,

however as with all things we must also examine the communications gap
created, there is a void that the maligned information was previously
occupying, and this void may become vacuum-like and pull in broader
discourse which otherwise would not have participated within the
misinformation. This is not a bad thing. In the following sub-section
"Punitive Perceptions" the responsibility created by this vacuum is
discussed.

Much like the above notion, this next concept is discussed in "Punitive
Perception" in more detail, but here is the outline of the instrument which is
to be employed in this informational vacuum, a major top down exposition
which informs and authoritatively asserts a correct representation of the
word which wholly negates and disqualifies that misinformation initially
propagated.

This is a utilization of power, and sincere effort must be undertaken to

verify the assertions of the exposition, and further care must be taken to
ensure that the exposition adequately eclipses the misinformation, and
cements itself in the audiences mind as the superior theory due to its
totality and a contrasting of predictive power each theory which culminates
in the institutionally back theory as the correct framework to adopt.

Punitive Perceptions
Institutions quarantining human agents within the system may have a
punitive perception of the quarantine due to the structural mythologies
surrounding quarantine not just in our contemporary post-COVID society,
but also our inherited myth which is deeply influenced by notions of racism
and xenophobia due to the historic correlations between victims of an
illness and their introducing such an illness to new populations.

The type of demanding cries from the quarantined agent can be read as
comparable to the average conspiracy theorist, alt-right propagandist or
Christian dogmatist. They are demanding a liberty to spread their
misinformation in the same way anti-mask and anti-lockdown protesters
are demanding that they be free to spread their viral harm. If you are
reading this and drawing conclusion of them being strange bed fellows, I
agree, but the key here is that their relational structures and functions
within their given systems are analogous with very high fidelity.

In off setting this one ought to borrow from the enemies of Antonio
Gramsci, and weaponize the tools of Reterritorialization (the inverse of
Deterritorialization), and major literature (Minor and Major Literature) to use
their power as an instrument and reinforce their hegemony. Note, that this
is not a "clean" or "pure" mechanism of correcting a system, there is no
such means, the Hippocratic Oath is an example of how systems require a
disruptive element in order to correct them, misinformation being negated
by systems of power is no different, and confers with it a comparable
responsibility.
Demanding Grounding
"What's the argument for that?" - Online Proverb

An iconic statement within the online debate sphere, but for our context
here, an important one, here it ought to be read as an inquiry into
authenticity akin to an investigation into a university student's citations in a
paper. The demand for grounding is an important demand to be made, and
one that is expressed in the previous piece. Whilst the above proverb
discusses a singular mode by which grounding can be provided, I am not
asserting here a need for an formal logic essentialist basis for grounding,
but rather being willing to acknowledge a plurality of degrees of credence
and a plurality of evidences, proofs and rationales which may justify the
propagation of a given proposition.

By making inquiry into the credence to which someone holds a given

proposition, and the grounding for that credence, then contrasting it
against their historical communications and creating an evaluative
representation for inquiry ought to be the model here.

Let us take a given subject A;

A believes P, this is confirmed via their public communications.

When asked by an Investigator, A asserts X credence regarding P.
A's communications indicate Y credence when viewed through the
communal epistemic framework.

Inquiry must be made by our investigator into if X and Y are within an

acceptable range of closeness to one another.

One model for performing this investigation is to map out in a meaningful

manner what precisely P is, its formulation, presuppositions, axioms,
predicates, evidence and other entailments. Something akin to the Principle
of Sufficient Reason or Socratic Method, should be employed for this
mapping endeavour.
From here our dutiful investigator ought to employ a type of
communications review on all accessible discourse performed by A
regarding P within the communal communications epistemology. From this
we have our comparative model our mapped argument M and our
communicative artefacts C.

From here we make a small needed assumption that M approximately

equals X in the above example and C is a codification of the initial naïve
perception of Y. We can evaluate M's and C's fidelity to X and Y
respectively based on the quantity of the information available in relation to
the complexity of the claim, which is basically just a second order systemic
observation to control for this models authenticity and biases and provides
an additional point for re-correction.

If from here M≈X≈C≈Y, then A has not made an error here assuming that P
is true, if P is untrue then there has still been a cognitive failure, logical
error and a communicative failure due to a collapse from explosivity.
However, if M≈X≇C≈Y then there is a communicative failure, regardless of
P's truth value, regardless of truth theory.

This exercise was important for the goals of discourse on misinformation

within an institution as we are presupposing P being false in this exercise.
But one thing omitted thus far is the scope or and nature of P, and that
when P is a social phenomena the mechanism of verification are radically
different, as are the mechanisms of a singular proposition of adequately
capturing a structural system of relations which are entailed by a claim
about social phenomena.

If P is a social phenomena then that places exceptional scrutiny on Y and C

to accurately represent P, X and M. Given the informal standard for
communications for a majority of communities it is not a great leap to land
on a generally high probability of M≈X≇C≈Y being true with P being false.
This is heuristic is deserving of its own work though.

Informational Reparation
From M≈X≇C≈Y, we can approximate a degree of damage, with key
representations of the damage, whether it be other agents' credence to P
or a qualitative loss of status, there is a plurality of mechanism which can
contribute to the damage. In an instance where such a malfeasance has
occurred there needs to be a dual response from the institution, the
institution much punish the committing agent in the minimum form of an
active communications campaign from that individual where the objectively
express true information around P that is verified by the institution, as well
as the institution creating a major literary text which expresses and affirms
the truth akin to how it is described in "Punitive Perspectives." A private
apology and acknowledgement of wrongdoing however cannot be an
adequate response to M≈X≇C≈Y. Whilst an informational reparation may
take many forms, and may not take many more, the specific formulation of
such a reparation deserves inquiry beyond the scope of this piece.