> If they could declare with certainty that Buckminster's and Alpoge's usage data had been totally excluded from training, would that set a worse precedent and reflect poorly on their de-identification process (and data access safeguards moreover)?
No; if they said "we can see that Tristan opted out of model improvement, therefore we are confident his work and ideas did not improve our model," that would be an excellent and reassuring precedent.
No; if they said "we can see that Tristan opted out of model improvement, therefore we are confident his work and ideas did not improve our model," that would be an excellent and reassuring precedent.