A search for practitioner commentary on the Admiralty Code found writers arguing to keep reliability and credibility separate, and none arguing to merge them

A search for practitioner commentary on the Admiralty Code's two-axis design surfaced writers making the case for keeping reliability and credibility apart, and none making the case for fusing them into a single field. Jessica Stutzman writes: "Collapsing both dimensions into a single 'trustworthy' or 'untrustworthy' call destroys the reader's ability to see where your assessment is strong and where it's fragile." A blog summarizing UK defence intelligence doctrine (JDP 2-00) states the same principle in doctrine's own terms: "During evaluation, the reliability and credibility of information are considered independently to ensure each does not influence the other."

This is a search-limited landscape observation, not an exhaustive survey — Stutzman is a named practitioner writing secondary commentary in her own venue (Tier 3); Tastes of History is an unnamed organizational author restating doctrine at one remove (Tier 4). A precision note: neither source names the "Admiralty Code" itself — Stutzman argues from its doctrinal descendants (UK JDP 2-00; US Army ATP 2-22.9), and Tastes of History presents the A–F/1–6 grading scales without naming the scheme — so what the search surfaced is commentary on the Code's two-axis design as it survives in current doctrine, not commentary invoking the Code by name. Neither source constitutes proof that no counter-argument for merging exists anywhere. It bears on question-should-vault-source-tier-split-into-two-axes as one more data point running the same direction: practitioners who write about the split, write in favor of keeping it.