I can't follow what priors Bob has in this case and what update you think he should make. I do think that in this example, the presenter of the hypothetical should update on the evidence that Bob doesn't find the fictional case worth discussing.

I think stating things in terms of beliefs (priors and updates) is extremely helpful when discussing communication and reflective knowledge. But I haven't seen the detail needed for it to be a compelling (or even understandable) point on this specific topic.