Another way to generalize 4 is
Always correct your probability estimates for the possibility that you've made an incorrect assumption.
I don't think "changes the issue" is the best way to say this, because there is always a probability that your model won't work even if it doesn't say something is impossible.
I don't know about this being a category error though. I think "map 1 is accurate with respect to X" is a valid proposition.
Always correct your probability estimates for the possibility that you've made an incorrect assumption.
I think that's good too - Jaynes advocated including a "something else that I didn't think of" hypothesis to your hypothesis to avoid accepting something strongly when all you've done is eliminate the alternatives you've considered.
I don't know about this being a category error though. I think "map 1 is accurate with respect to X" is a valid proposition
"Is accurate" isn't much of a proposition in itself, as it leaves...
Too many people attempt to use logic when they should be using probabilities - in fact, when they are using probabilities, but don't mention it. Here are some of the major fallacies caused by misusing logic and probabilities this way:
Common fallacies in probability