Copying my response from Teams, with some small edits to remove things that you chose not to reveal publicly for some reason:
I am skeptical about several points in your analysis. But most troubling at all is this bit:
So, when I say there are [small number that was removed from public post, for some reason] appeals that we cannot identify as correct, please keep in mind that our baseline value for this is zero, and it’s been that way for years. It is exceptionally strange for us to look at a moderator’s action and find ourselves unable to verify it – yet this is the situation we are frequently in with respect to GPT.
Moderators are human, and we make mistakes and have disagreements. This rate should have never been zero- if you are actually giving appeals a fair shake, you should at least be finding yourself contacting the moderators in question for clarification from time to time.
When I tell someone I've just suspended to use the "Contact Us" button for appeal, it's with the belief that appeals are given a thorough evaluation. Have I just been telling them to spit into the wind all this time?
So, now you have [same small number again] suspension appeals you aren't sure about. So talk to the moderators in question! Maybe there are hallucinations that it takes a subject expert to identify. Maybe the moderators in question are using a heuristic you are unfamiliar with. Maybe some of them are actually wrong.
You'll never be able to find out any of this if you don't talk about it with the moderators. Please work with us to develop heuristics that work and identify ones that don't, rather than just giving up and forbidding us from moderating at all.
Side note:
mods can’t assess posts on the basis of GPT authorship (where we would be after this policy)
Not sure you meant to post this publicly, but I'm glad you're finally admitting publicly what was said privately- that mods aren't allowed to moderate ChatGPT posts at all.