Control Over the Allocation of Revision: Who Must Change When an Account and a Situation Disagree

This conceptual paper introduces Control Over the Allocation of Revision, a mechanism through which unequal control shapes the response to a discrepancy between an account and a situation. The account may change, or adjustment may fall on the circumstances, the challenger’s conduct, or the presentation and procedural status of the dispute. The paper distinguishes correcting a discrepancy from shifting its costs or closing the challenge. Identifying the mechanism requires evidence that unequal control materially shaped the response. The evidence supporting the account and the legitimacy of the assigned burdens require separate assessments; practical power establishes neither. The discussion connects the mechanism to Galanter’s analysis of repeat players and examines Hamilton v Post Office Ltd (2021), involving the Horizon accounting system. The case concerns control over records, disclosure, and responses to disputed shortfalls. The court quashed convictions in 39 of 42 appeals without establishing the cause of any particular branch’s shortfall. Part of the Standards and Answerability series within On Human Modeling, the paper asks who registers discrepancies, who must change, who pays, and who can declare a dispute closed. Its framework can inform human–AI research on how control over records and challenge procedures affects correction, burden allocation, and the legitimacy of dispute closure.