Evidence and limits
Finding: The abstract reports a preference for short explanations made from related arguments, with participant explanations often shorter than the formal definitions produced.
Impact: Watch concise explanation plus separately retained justification as a hypothesis for the recorded review topic (see source).
Boundary: An explanation-choice experiment does not show that shorter explanations improve decisions, trust calibration, or kit effectiveness. Next: does a concise visible explanation with inspectable supporting evidence improve a named review behavior without hiding material limits? Candidate; not promoted or adopted
Flags: publisher-page screen only; constrained argument-selection task; preference is not decision quality, calibrated reliance, or kit effectiveness
Record State: Candidate only: not accepted into the reviewed catalog
What was reviewed: Previously screened candidate; review remains limited