> If you analyze a situation and find that you're factually correct, you haven't failed to admit to being wrong. Ah, but here's the thing: if your interlocutor

> If you analyze a situation and find that you're factually correct, you haven't failed to admit to being wrong. Ah, but here's the thing: if your interlocutor has some motive other than truth-seeking then they will demand you admit error regardless of whether you are actually in error. This means to them you can fail to admit error even when no error occurred. It's circumstances like this that the author is analyzing by taking "I was right" as a hypothesis - the article doesn't claim this is always the case but wants to make some particular conclusions about cases where no error was made.