Case 11 — Cross-examination
Arguing both sides of a real provenance dispute before you're allowed to reach a verdict
3 May 2027
Assignment 3 is due today. This is the most adversarial session of the course, on purpose: you were assigned a side of a genuine provenance dispute in week 10, and today you find out how it holds up against someone assigned the other one.
Before the session#
Submit Assignment 3 before the session starts.
In the session#
Paired cross-examinations: each of you spends five minutes attacking the other’s case, using nothing but questions. No new evidence is allowed — only pressure on the evidence already presented. The point isn’t to win; it’s to find out which parts of your case were actually load-bearing.
Afterwards#
Whatever survived the cross-examination is what you’re entitled to still believe. Anything that didn’t survive is worth revisiting before week 12, where the same discipline gets applied to a case you chose yourself, with nobody assigning you a side to defend.
The spec
What you bring to the session. Written so a reader can tell whether it has been met without asking you.
- your Assignment 3 submission argues both sides of the assigned provenance dispute before reaching a verdict
- your final verdict states explicitly what evidence would have changed it
Teaching team
- Prof Tomas Vidergar — convenor