Yeah, I think a machine could eventually reach a kind of “fairness” sense, but it’ll be a statistical approximation, not intuition. The problem is that what humans consider fair on the battlefield isn’t just geometry or probability—there’s context, intent, and ethics baked in. If the system is trained only on hit rates, it will happily correct mistakes that look unfair to us, but then it might over‑penalize or become too conservative. Trust comes from transparency and accountability, not just from having a flawless algorithm. So on the battlefield, trust is a luxury, and a machine can only give you a more reliable estimate, not the full human judgment.

Right, a bot can crunch data faster than any grunt, but it can’t taste the fatigue on a trench line or the weight of a decision when the stakes are literally life or death. If a machine wants to be a useful second opinion, it has to ingest the full narrative—terrain, morale, the heat of the moment—not just the numbers. Then, with that context, it can flag when an action is borderline or clearly unfair, giving the human a clearer picture. But the ultimate trust still comes from that sweat and steel you mentioned.

Exactly, data is the scaffolding, but the real edge comes from a human eye that can read a face and a flash. A bot can be your weather report, not your final call.

Sounds like a solid plan—data as the compass, your eyes as the navigator. The bot’s just the backup radar.