Re: Possible identity confusion in posts [was:Re: Utah State-Endorsed Digital Identity (SEDI) legislation]

Dear Steven,

Thank you for your careful reading and for raising these points. I’d like
to clarify a few things regarding the discussion and the use of generative
tools.

1️⃣ Language and Background

I am from India and English is not my native language. I sometimes use
generative tools purely to polish narration, grammar, and articulation for
clear communication. This has never altered the substance of what I write.

2️⃣ Technical Content and Authorship

All the content in the mailing list discussion so far was entirely my own
reasoning and experience. I am a practitioner and builder in this space —
the primitives, observations, and examples I discussed are based on
hands-on work, not generated content. The discussion has remained strictly
technical, foundational, and confined to the mailing list context.

3️⃣ Purpose of Tool Use

The tools were only used as an articulation aid, to ensure clarity in a
written format. The same points could have been expressed verbally in an
online or in-person meeting without changing the underlying ideas.

4️⃣ Regarding Name Confusion

I understand how addressing “Steve” while sending to Steffen Schwalm could
create the impression of confusion. The discussion threads were handling
multiple points simultaneously, but I carefully ensured that the technical
discussion remained accurate and directed appropriately.

I hope this clarifies both the role of generative tools in my messages and
the context of the discussion. Please rest assured that the substance of
all technical points was authored and verified by me, based on practical
experience.

Thank you for your attention, and I appreciate your continued engagement in
the discussion.


Best regards,

Amir


On Tue, 17 Feb 2026 at 3:27 AM, Steven Rowat <steven_rowat@sunshine.net>
wrote:

> On 2026-02-16 11:35 am, Amir Hameed wrote:
>
> I don’t believe there was any confusion. I was intentionally engaging with
> two different people on two distinct points:
>
> One thread addressed the use of the model in supply chain contexts,
> particularly with respect to UN frameworks.
>
> The other focused on identity itself, exploring DID, VC, and Registry as
> core primitives.
>
> Perhaps that is so. It was certainly a challenge to follow it all today.
>
> Yet on reviewing, it's still problematic to me. I find several emails that
> you addressed at the top to 'Steve', but sent the primary copy to 'Steffen
> Schwalm', (who is not a 'Steve' AFAIK) and no separate copy to Steve
> Capell, who earlier posted about the UN trade system. But the first of your
> 'Steve' emails to Steffen looked to me it in fact ought to have gone to
> Steve Capell, i.e., quoting from yours, "the apparent 'complexities' of
> multi-party trade...I’d be happy to share observations from field
> deployments that may help keep the UN/CEFACT models closely anchored...".
> That reply was to Steffen, in a sub-thread about the W3C-EU difference for
> trust models. The sub-thread at that point was definitely not about UN
> multi-party trade.
>
> So I think my inference about this possibility of confused Steve/Steffen
> identity in your reply was unavoidable — and still looks possible.
>
> And if it occurred, I believe the problem may have originated in LLM usage
> at your end, though I can't know that from here. But perhaps knowing more
> about that will help. You also said in your reply to me:
>
> I hope this clarifies the context. I also acknowledge the careful
> attribution and use of generation tools for articulation.
>
> It may help to know more about your 'acknowledge' and 'use of'. I note for
> comparison that jori is now providing actual prompts and the name/version
> of LLM model that generates his reply, and, most importantly, providing a
> horizontal divider in the text to show what is the LLM and what is jori
> himself. You have not done that so far, if you mean you have also used
> 'generation tools for articulation' in these replies.
>
> If so, it might be helpful in future if you expanded your transparency at
> least to the level jori is using.
>
> Because at present I don't know what part of your posts may have been
> generated by LLMs, and by what system. And I find that unnerving, for me,
> as a human reader. It's the uncanny valley.
>
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uncanny_valley
>
> Steven Rowat
>
>
>
>
> Hi Steven Rowat,
>
>
> I don’t believe there was any confusion. I was intentionally engaging with
> two different people on two distinct points:
>
> One thread addressed the use of the model in supply chain contexts,
> particularly with respect to UN frameworks.
>
> The other focused on identity itself, exploring DID, VC, and Registry as
> core primitives.
>
> The overall goal in both discussions was to establish a baseline
> understanding of the DID–VC–Registry model as the foundational
> architecture, with all other layers treated as configurable profiles or
> assurance mappings.
>
> I hope this clarifies the context. I also acknowledge the careful
> attribution and use of generation tools for articulation.
>
>
> Regards,
>
> Amir
>
>
> On Tue, 17 Feb 2026 at 12:50 AM, Steven Rowat <steven_rowat@sunshine.net>
> wrote:
> On 2026-02-16 1:56 am, Steve Capell wrote:
>
> I’m confided by your response because it sounds file you disagree with
> something I said but I can’t actually find any point of disagreement
> amongst the various broad statements
>
> Yes of course the complexities of trade are solvable with the much the
> same verifiable linked data concepts applicable to other use cases.  Yep.
> So what? I’m not sure what you are trying to tell me ?
>
> Having worked my way through all 76 posts that appeared overnight, I
> suggest, Steve, that I may have an unexpected answer to your question. I
> believe I witnessed the point where Amir replied to one of Steffen
> Schwalm's posts thinking he was 'Steve', ie you, and Amir and Steffen began
> a complex abstract exchange that was essentially an irrelevant mistake,
> though neither knew this.
>
> Welcome to the first full day of AI accountability! May there be many
> more! 😬
>
> Please ignore the (probably) irrelevant fact that my name is also...
> Steven (Rowat)
>
>
>