Yes it does. If you simply treat that drift as additional "error", you're still fundamentally dealing with an imperfect sensor with an error rate. And mathemati

Yes it does. If you simply treat that drift as additional "error", you're still fundamentally dealing with an imperfect sensor with an error rate. And mathematically, that makes it all still fall under the Kalman filter metrics. (To be fair, you'd still need to quantify the reported thing somehow.) Which should make intuitive sense. If 1 person claims they got raped by someone, and that is the only evidence against them, you might be skeptical. If 50 people claim they got raped by someone, and that is the only evidence against them, a reasonable position IMHO would be that the chances that this person is not a rapist are vanishingly small, even if (on average) 5 to 10% of the reports are non-truthful and motivated by perverse incentives (such as avoiding shame of promiscuity). At some point we need to figure out how to deal with eyewitness evidence without complete dismissal, because complete dismissal of it is wrong (it's literally gaslighting- telling people that their reported experiences are irrelevant/invalid, which is the same as asserting that they didn't happen IMHO). Plenty of experiences (both positive and negative) happen that only have the retelling as the evidence, and ignoring all retellings omits a possibly large amount of evidential source of truth.