The issues weren't with risk per se, nor any minimum bar, but with risky assets dressed up to deceive buyers (and those that audit collateral) into thinking the

The issues weren't with risk per se, nor any minimum bar, but with risky assets dressed up to deceive buyers (and those that audit collateral) into thinking they're not risky. If something is too complex to interpret: maybe that's not immediately a problem, but it likely shouldn't serve as collateral for a loan (or similar), especially not systemically. So this conceptual oracle doesn't need to be perfect: it just needs to accept a few false negatives (unnecessarily rejected collateral) in order to ensure there are few false positives (unwisely accepted collateral). Philosophically it certainly feels to me like an easier problem than finding a more generally trustworthy oracle; but these kind of things certainly are tricky.