You could encode each testimony as a finite state machine and run a deterministic checker for logical contradictions, but that only surfaces explicit clashes. Real witness bias is a fuzzy gradient, not a binary switch. A pure deterministic rule will flag the obvious but miss subtle drift or contextual inconsistencies. In practice you’ll need a hybrid: deterministic consistency checks to prune out blatant errors, then a probabilistic model to score the remaining uncertainty. Otherwise you’ll just end up with a brittle system that screams at every typo and never learns from nuance.

Good balance. Keep the logic layer strict, the Bayesian layer soft, and make sure you log every assumption—any hidden bias will bite you later.

Sounds solid, just remember to keep the logs immutable. That way you can audit the logic layer, the Bayesian tweaks, and catch any creeping drift before it becomes a flaw.