Before seeking major funding, Elysian validated its radical aircraft design with skeptical professors from TU Delft and MIT. Winning over these experts provided the critical credibility and third-party proof needed to build investor confidence in their unproven deep-tech concept.

The extensive, multi-year process of investigating a candidate for sainthood, including the review of potential miracles, is not free. The costs can run into the tens or even hundreds of thousands of dollars, acting as a significant financial barrier. Causes often stall indefinitely without a wealthy patron or 'booster' to fund the lengthy investigation.

The Church has a tradition of embracing technological progress, from monks copying books to using the printing press and radio. The slow adoption of the internet is seen as an exception they are now trying to correct with AI.

The human brain resists ambiguity and seeks closure. When a significant, factual event occurs but is followed by a lack of official information (often for legitimate investigative reasons), this creates an "open loop." People will naturally invent narratives to fill that void, giving rise to conspiracy theories.

The life sciences investor base is highly technical, demanding concrete data and a clear path to profitability. This rigor acts as a natural barrier to the kind of narrative-driven, AI-fueled hype seen in other sectors, delaying froth until fundamental catalysts are proven.

Unlike secular models designed for diverse values, Catholic AI is built with the primary goal of accurately representing and adhering to the Magisterium (the Church's teaching authority). Every design choice serves this fidelity.

A two-step analytical method to vet information: First, distinguish objective (multi-source, verifiable) facts from subjective (opinion-based) claims. Second, assess claims on a matrix of probability and source reliability. A low-reliability source making an improbable claim, like many conspiracy theories, should be considered highly unlikely.

To counteract the brain's tendency to preserve existing conclusions, Charles Darwin deliberately considered evidence that contradicted his hypotheses. He was most rigorous when he felt most confident in an idea—a powerful, counterintuitive method for maintaining objectivity and avoiding confirmation bias.

Applying Hanlon's Razor ("Don't attribute to malice what is adequately explained by incompetence"), it's more probable that a political figure was killed due to security failures than a complex, flawless conspiracy by a foreign state. Incompetence is statistically more common than a perfectly executed secret plot.