Thank you, I think this has direct applications for evaluating research in everyday life. Specifically, the most valuable role an expert can play is not synthesis of evidence (presenting a conclusion) but simply making sure that there is a correct overview of what evidence there is available. I should increase my credence in experts who seem to be engaging in this (collection and summary of evidence) behavior and lower my credence in experts who engage in lots of synthesis. Likewise, I should also not bother synthesizing but devote effort towards finding the best evidence available, collating it, and then getting feedback from lots of others on what the best synthesis would be. Perhaps doing things like Rot13 my own preliminary conclusions and ask people to comment on the evidence before reading them.