Format-switching hastens commitment to misinterpretation

Human-AI checking may preserve a source’s wording yet guide people toward a wrong meaning. This hypothesis asks whether random switching between checking formats raises that risk. The formats would match meaning, cues, reading time and source access, but be calibrated to make interpretation changes easier or harder. Time in each would remain equal as switching ranged from blocked to rapid. Its signature is the shortest time to a first explicit, source-inconsistent commitment at an intermediate switching rate. The optimum should shift with an independently measured interpretation timescale. Held-out rates would test the barrier mechanism against monotonic explanations.