Comerlin thought testing definitions with concrete examples was at least as reliable as reading definitions in mathematical papers, and perhaps more reliable, because reviewers may see what they expect to see.

“If the definitions yielded objects that looked like a duck and quacked like a duck, perhaps they really were defining a duck. The examples were not watertight evidence, but Comerlin thought they were at least as reliable as reading definitions in a mathematical paper, perhaps even more so, given how easy it is for mathematicians to see what they expect to see when reviewing one another's work.”