The question I was raising is why it is acceptable for a character to operate on the assumption that torture reports are 100% always accurate...
Our characters would request scout reports whether or not they were known to be 100% accurate (and in fact they are not 100% accurate. maybe 90%. if you count misdirections, maybe even less). But "torture reports" are purely an OOC convenience to add a fun feature to the game.
What about those situations where a character demands a scout report to verify the presence of a noble in a region? i.e. after an assassination attempt or other infiltrator sabotage. Or a looting. We, as players, know that scout reports regarding the presence of a noble can't be faked. Is it therefore acceptable to demand a scout report to verify the presence, because we know it can't be faked? Or in those cases should we be forced to accept the player's word for it, since that can be faked?
And, after all, as far as our characters should be concerned, your character telling mine that Kepler was in Kepler City is just as accurate as a scribe report showing it. Why should I trust a scout report
that you had your scribe write out by hand any more than I would trust you to dictate the exact same list of names to your scribe? It seems to me that by your reasoning in this case, the very act of demanding *anything* as a scribe note is indicative of metagaming, since the only point of demanding a scribe note is that we, as players, know OOC that they are guaranteed 100% accurate.
