Changes

|Verdict Rationale=It was agreed that the "modification provides a great addition to the current body of scientonomic knowledge"^{[[Modification_talk: Sciento-2018-0018#comment-115|c1]]} as the law offers "a dynamic account of compatibility"^{[[Modification_talk: Sciento-2018-0018#comment-181|c2]]} and "allows for a diachronic study of compatibility".^{[[Modification_talk: Sciento-2018-0018#comment-178|c3]]} The law was praised for its non-tautological nature, since it "forbids a number of logically conceivable scenarios".^{[[Modification_talk: Sciento-2018-0018#comment-115|c4]]} While finding the law acceptable, one of the commentators raised an important question for future scientonomic research: do we even need a separate law of compatibility? Specifically they asked: "Is assessment for compatibility with other elements of the mosaic really conceptually distinct from the process of assessment for theory acceptance, which is already covered by other scientonomic laws?"^{[[Modification_talk: Sciento-2018-0018#comment-181|c5]]} On this view, "the issue of the conceptual separability of theory compatibility and theory acceptance, and thus the need for two parallel laws, remains an open question that warrants further investigation".^{[[Modification_talk: Sciento-2018-0018#comment-181|c6]]}