It's simply a matter of applying a prior: when I hear an organization's claim, I consider the base rate at which past claims have proven trustworthy, adjusting

It's simply a matter of applying a prior: when I hear an organization's claim, I consider the base rate at which past claims have proven trustworthy, adjusting for whether past errors were honest mistakes, noble lies, culpable failures to apply medieval-peasant-tier common sense, the fruit of transparently ulterior motives, and so on. I sure hope they're right in this case but it's not clear why in particular I should think so. What do you do?