Get Your Weekly Digest

Receive the best podcast summaries and insights delivered to your inbox every week.

We respect your privacy. Unsubscribe anytime.

Stuff You Should Know

Selects: The Great Finger in the Wendy's Chili Caper

Published October 25, 2025
View Show Notes

About This Episode

Josh Clark and Charles W. "Chuck" Bryant recount the 2005 Wendy's chili finger case in which Anna Ayala claimed to find a human fingertip in her bowl of chili at a San Jose Wendy's. They walk through the immediate fallout for Wendy's, the internal and police investigations, the exposure of the hoax, the discovery of whose finger it really was, and the legal and financial consequences for Ayala, her husband, and the restaurant chain. The hosts also briefly touch on other verified cases of fingers found in fast food and read a listener email about the Adidas-Puma feud episode.

Topics Covered

Food contamination incidents Fast food industry Consumer scams and fraud Corporate crisis management Forensic investigation Media coverage of crime Lawsuits Civil litigation Criminal psychology Public relations

Disclaimer: We provide independent summaries of podcasts and are not affiliated with or endorsed in any way by any podcast or creator. All podcast names and content are the property of their respective owners. The views and opinions expressed within the podcasts belong solely to the original hosts and guests and do not reflect the views or positions of Summapod.

Quick Takeaways

  • In 2005, Anna Ayala claimed to find a human fingertip in her Wendy's chili, triggering a huge media storm and a sharp drop in Wendy's sales, especially in the Bay Area.
  • Wendy's conducted an extensive internal and supply-chain investigation, hired a forensic food microscopy expert, and determined the finger had not been cooked in their chili and did not originate from any of their employees or suppliers.
  • Background checks and hotline tips revealed Ayala's long history of civil lawsuits and scams, leading investigators to suspect and ultimately prove that the incident was a deliberate fraud.
  • The fingertip was traced via DNA to construction worker Brian Rossiter, whose finger had been amputated in a tailgate accident and taken by Ayala's husband, Jamie Plascencia, as part of a debt arrangement and later used in the hoax.
  • Ayala and Plascencia were convicted of grand theft and related charges, served prison time, and were ordered to pay restitution to Wendy's employees and the franchise owner, while Wendy's reportedly lost about $2.5 million in business from the scare.
  • Forensic details, such as lack of cooking signs on the finger, absence of bite marks, and no evidence of vomiting at the restaurant, undermined Ayala's public story.
  • Wendy's handled much of the investigation quietly to avoid appearing to attack a purported victim, while also working to protect its brand and assist law enforcement.
  • There have been several other verified cases of fingers ending up in fast food through genuine industrial accidents, underscoring that such contamination, while rare, does occur.
  • The case has since become a textbook example in business courses on how corporations can respond to public-relations crises and alleged product tampering.
  • A listener email at the end highlights the enduring cultural rivalry between Adidas and Puma in Herzogenaurach, Germany, showing how SYSK episodes connect to listeners' personal histories.

Podcast Notes

Setting the stage for the Wendy's chili finger case

Transition into the 2005 incident

Using the "Wayback Machine" bit to go to 2005[4:02]
• Josh and Chuck jokingly "travel" back to 2005 instead of just talking about it, playing with the idea of physically going to the time and place of the incident.
Banter about aging and perspective on years[4:12]
• Chuck reflects that going back 13 years from his current late 40s would put him at 35, which he once thought was old but now would welcome.
• Josh says he's pretty happy with being 42, except for feeling like his face is turning into a "catcher's mitt."
Wendy's Super Bar nostalgia[5:12]
• They imagine themselves in a 2005 Wendy's in San Jose, with patrons telling them to get their Super Bar order going, then note Super Bar was really more an '80s-'90s thing.
• Chuck explains the Wendy's Super Bar was an all-you-can-eat bar with tacos, pasta, salad, baked potatoes-"just like whatever you want."
• Josh had forgotten about the Super Bar and calls it a weird but good idea.

The incident: a finger in Wendy's chili

Introducing Anna (Ana) Ayala and the San Jose Wendy's

Scene-setting at the San Jose Wendy's on March 22, 2005[6:13]
• Chuck identifies a woman at a table as Anna or Ana Ayala, sitting with in-laws and possibly other family members at a downtown San Jose Wendy's.
• He specifies the date as March 22, 2005, and location as the San Jose Wendy's, likely the downtown store.
Ayala's background and reason for ordering chili[6:36]
• Josh notes she is in her late 30s and that it's cold in San Jose; she has been living in Las Vegas and is not used to the cold anymore.
• They mention she is originally from San Jose but moved to Vegas a couple of years earlier.
• Because of the cold and her fondness for Wendy's chili, she orders a cup-described as "meaty and warm."

Discovery of the finger in the chili

Ayala's reaction upon biting into the chili[6:59]
• They describe Ayala suddenly going "berserk" at the table, with her family putting their hands up as if trying to calm her down.
• She points emphatically at her nearly finished cup of chili and claims there is a finger in it that she just bit into.
Description of the finger[7:08]
• Josh specifies it's about an inch and a half of a finger from the tip downward, with a visible fingernail, making it clearly identifiable as a finger rather than a vegetable.
• He contrasts Wendy's employees' initial claim that it looked like a pale carrot with the reality that the fingernail gives it away as a human finger.
Chaos in the restaurant[7:30]
• Ayala yells at other patrons with chili not to eat it, warning them about the "finger chili," and tries to get a chant started.
• They joke about one guy supposedly still eating and saying he ordered the finger chili, trying to keep it light while describing the chaos.
• A reported remark by Ayala at the counter is that she asked a cashier, "Who did you kill to get this finger?" which Josh calls a weird thing to say.

Immediate response from Wendy's and authorities

Actions taken by Wendy's staff[8:11]
• Upon realizing it's a finger, Wendy's employees dump out all the chili to prevent further serving.
• They call the police and contact the franchise owners, JEM Management, who instruct them not to tamper with the finger and to put it in the freezer until the owners arrive in the morning.
Police and health department roles[8:35]
• The police respond but quickly frame it as a health department matter rather than an immediate criminal issue and leave.
• Josh explains that at this stage, it appears to authorities as a gross public health issue, not an obvious crime, so Wendy's is essentially told to work with health officials.
Ayala leaves and the story begins to spread[8:58]
• After the incident, Ayala leaves the restaurant, while her family members take photographs of the scene.
• By 10 p.m. that night-about three hours after the 7 p.m. incident-local news reports an unconfirmed story of a woman finding a finger in her Wendy's chili.
• Josh jokes that Dave Thomas, the late Wendy's founder (who actually died in 2002), metaphorically "rolls over in his grave" at the news.

Impact on Wendy's and early framing of the case

Business impact and brand damage

Sales decline in the Bay Area and beyond[11:12]
• Chuck notes that almost immediately, Wendy's restaurants, especially in the Bay Area near San Jose, see a significant business hit.
• He emphasizes that this affects all Wendy's sales, not just chili: people are broadly grossed out and are not thinking, "this reminds me how much I love Wendy's chili."
Wendy's chili as a signature product[10:21]
• They point out that Wendy's is especially known for chili; if you want chili at a fast-food place, you go to Wendy's because most competitors don't offer it.
• They briefly compare to A&W (for chili on hot dogs) and Skyline Chili in the Midwest, but stress that Wendy's planted its flag in the chili niche nationally.

Framing Wendy's problem and initial questions

The key questions Wendy's must answer[11:39]
• Josh lays out three main questions: whose finger is it, how did the finger get into the chili, and who exactly is the woman who found it (Ayala)?
• He notes Wendy's initially focuses on the first two questions, while the third-Ayala's identity and background-becomes important later.
Police reluctance and corporate burden[12:23]
• The police see it primarily as a health department issue at first, so Wendy's is left to do a lot of investigative legwork that might otherwise have been handled by law enforcement.
• Josh defends the police perspective, saying that initially it really does look like a woman found a finger in chili-a gross event but not clearly a fraud or violent crime.
Speculation about risk perception and consumer behavior[12:48]
• Chuck imagines someone deliberately eating at that same Wendy's the next day, reasoning that it would now be the least likely place to find another finger because of heightened scrutiny.
• He likens it to the idea that right after an airline crash, that airline is temporarily safer due to extra caution and inspections.

Wendy's internal investigation and forensic analysis

Initial checks at the restaurant and supply chain

Verifying that no employee is missing a finger[18:12]
• Wendy's first step is to check all employees at the San Jose restaurant for missing fingers, asking everyone to show their hands; all employees have intact fingers.
• They later put everyone on staff through polygraph tests, which all employees reportedly pass.
Tracing ingredients through the supply chain[19:06]
• Wendy's traces chili ingredients back through seven different suppliers to see if any worker in the supply chain suffered a finger injury that might explain the contamination.
• All seven suppliers provide documentation that none of their employees had any recent finger injuries or amputations, further suggesting the finger did not come from standard production.
Reality of fingers occasionally ending up in food[19:15]
• Chuck notes that these things do happen, citing five other documented cases of fingers found in fast food that were legitimate, usually from industrial accidents.
• He mentions how a severed finger could end up in a bag of lettuce or other ingredients that then go into a restaurant's food service (though this was not the case here).

Forensic examination of the finger

Hiring forensic food microscopy expert Dr. Lynn Bates[20:39]
• Wendy's hires Dr. Lynn S. Bates, CEO of Alteca in Manhattan, Kansas, a forensic food microscopy firm specializing in body parts found in food.
• Josh notes that Bates and Alteca have been working on such cases since 1986 and that this is effectively their "bread and butter."
Findings on whether the finger was cooked in chili[21:13]
• Bates examines the finger and concludes there is no indication it was cooked for three hours in chili at 170°F, as would have been expected if it had been in Wendy's chili during preparation.
• This forensic result, combined with supply-chain checks, convinces Wendy's that the finger did not come from their operations and that they are being defrauded.
Inability to get usable fingerprints[21:50]
• Chuck notes that investigators were unable to get a good enough fingerprint from the severed finger to run a database search; if they had the whole hand, it might have been possible to compare prints.

Establishing a tip line and reward

Hotline and escalating rewards[22:35]
• Wendy's sets up a hotline for tips, initially offering a $50,000 reward, and later increasing it-at one point up to $200,000 is mentioned-to find the owner of the finger.
• Tips are funneled to the San Jose police as they come in, especially those that appear credible.

Scrutiny of Ana Ayala and growing suspicion of fraud

Police involvement and public-relations constraints

Role of San Jose Police Chief Rob Davis[24:20]
• San Jose Police Chief Rob Davis ultimately leads the investigation once it shifts from a pure health issue to a suspected fraud case.
• He has to identify who Ayala really is and navigate the fact that Wendy's can't publicly attack her or appear to blame the victim while the investigation is ongoing.
Wendy's crisis-management posture[24:13]
• Chuck explains that Wendy's must quietly spend money on investigations and avoid publicly accusing Ayala of lying or being after money.
• He says the case is now taught in classes about how to handle a corporate crisis; some view Wendy's actions as a good example, while others have criticized aspects.

Ayala's litigation history and pattern of behavior

Private investigator's findings on her lawsuits[22:41]
• A detective hired by Wendy's discovers that Ayala has filed at least 13 civil lawsuits, some against major corporations.
• Chuck notes that this alone would raise red flags to someone like Dave Thomas (jokingly imagining the founder reacting from beyond the grave).
Specific previous cases: El Pollo Loco and GM[23:24]
• Ayala claims to have won a $30,000 settlement from El Pollo Loco after her daughter allegedly got salmonella; El Pollo Loco has always denied paying her anything.
• She sued General Motors after a front wheel fell off her car, causing an accident; that suit was dismissed "with prejudice" when she fired her lawyer and then failed to show up in court, meaning she cannot refile it.
Other legal actions, including sexual-harassment claim[24:46]
• She filed a lawsuit against a former employer for sexual harassment; Josh and Chuck say they won't pass judgment on that one because they lack details and it might have been legitimate.
• She dropped the sexual-harassment case, which contributes to a pattern of starting and then withdrawing or losing suits.

Strange claims and tips around the finger's origin

Ken Bono's claim about a dead aunt's finger[25:19]
• A man living with Ayala's family, Ken Bono (or Bono), tells investigators that the finger came from their deceased aunt.
• Ayala responds that all her aunts are alive and says she doesn't know what he's talking about, despite him living in her house; Josh and Chuck highlight how bizarre this story is.
Allegations against the police search[24:44]
• Ayala accuses the police of holding a gun to her head, ransacking her home, and abusing her daughter during a search related to the investigation.
• There is a photo of Ayala and her daughter in their driveway speaking to a reporter, with her daughter's arm in a drugstore-type sling, which the hosts imply may have been staged.
Tip-line information that Ayala admitted a scam[26:10]
• Two separate callers, who supposedly do not know each other, contact the hotline with similar stories that Ayala told them she was fleecing Wendy's and that the incident was a money-making fraud.
• These tips, combined with Wendy's internal evidence and Ayala's litigation history, push police and public opinion toward viewing the case as a hoax rather than an accident.

Media circus and shifting public perception

Ayala's national TV appearance[27:25]
• Ayala goes on Good Morning America about a week after the incident and tells her story, portraying herself as a horrified victim and blaming Wendy's for the disgusting event.
• Josh says the video is hard to find and speculates the network may have taken it down because she was "lying through her teeth" on national television.
Late-night jokes about the incident[28:13]
• Chuck mentions that late-night talk shows, including Jay Leno and David Letterman, make jokes about the story; he quotes Letterman's joke that Ayala returned to Wendy's to order chili again to "collect all five" fingers.
• They contrast Letterman's sharper joke with Leno's weaker one about chili now coming with fingernail clippers on the side, using this to riff on the difference between the comedians.
Ayala attempts to drop the case[29:51]
• As scrutiny intensifies and the media narrative turns from sympathy to suspicion, Ayala announces she will drop her lawsuit against Wendy's, saying she can't handle the media spotlight.
• Wendy's refuses to "forget all about this" and continues pushing for a full investigation and legal resolution.

Unraveling the hoax: finger's origin and arrests

Additional background: scams and financial motive

The trailer sale scam[35:08]
• Investigators learn that Ayala sold a trailer in a trailer park to a woman for $11,000, even though Ayala did not own it.
• The buyer and her children are later evicted from the trailer because they never legally owned it, illustrating Ayala's willingness to conduct fraudulent sales.
Husband's large child-support debt[34:59]
• Ayala's husband, James (Jamie) Plascencia, owes about $400,000 in back child support from a previous relationship.
• Josh and Chuck suggest that Ayala and Plascencia appear to be constantly "looking for the angle" and for ways to get money without working for it.

Arrests in Las Vegas on unrelated charges

Holding Ayala and Plascencia while building the case[39:17]
• Roughly 32 days after the incident, Ayala and Plascencia are arrested in Las Vegas-he for failing to pay child support, she for the fraudulent trailer sale.
• Josh speculates that authorities may have used these existing charges to keep them from fleeing while building the primary fraud case.

Wendy's continued push to identify the finger's owner

Public-relations rationale for finding whose finger it is[40:09]
• Even after police say they don't need to know whose finger it is to prosecute, Wendy's wants that information to fully clear its name in the court of public opinion.
• They increase the reward from $50,000 to $100,000, hoping more concrete tips will come in about the finger's owner.

False leads: exotic cats and Mexican ranch hand

The exotic cat owner, Sandy Allman[40:27]
• A woman named Sandy Allman, who owned big cats (leopards, jaguars, tigers) near Las Vegas, had been attacked by a spotted leopard that bit off her finger during a transfer to a rescue group.
• She or someone associated with the rescue group contacts investigators, believing the finger in the chili might be hers; she last saw her finger on ice in an emergency room.
• Testing eventually shows the Wendy's finger is not hers, making this a red herring that consumes some investigative time but leads nowhere.
Rumor of a Mexican ranch hand's finger[42:24]
• Mexican authorities near the border look into a rumor that a ranch hand lost a finger in an accident and that this might be the source of the chili finger.
• No concrete link is established from this angle either, and it remains another dead-end lead.

Key tip and identification of the real finger owner

Tip from Mike Casey of Lamb Asphalt[42:55]
• After the reward is raised to $100,000, two callers come in with crucial information; one is Mike Casey, owner of Lamb Asphalt in Las Vegas.
• Casey employs both Jamie Plascencia and another worker, Brian Rossiter, who had recently lost part of his finger in a work accident.
• Casey puts two and two together: one of his employees is arrested in connection with the Wendy's case, and another employee is missing a fingertip, so he suspects the finger might be Rossiter's.
DNA confirmation that the finger belongs to Brian Rossiter[44:49]
• Investigators obtain a DNA sample from Rossiter and compare it to DNA from the finger found in the chili; they match, confirming it is his fingertip.
• This provides a crucial link: Rossiter worked with Plascencia, and Plascencia is married to Ayala, who "found" the finger in her chili.
How Plascencia obtained the finger from Rossiter[45:40]
• Rossiter had his finger tip severed when a truck's tailgate slammed down on his hand, cutting off about an inch and a half.
• Some accounts say he went to the hospital and later returned to the job site with the amputated finger; at this point, Plascencia sees it as an opportunity.
• Plascencia tells Rossiter he owes him money (sources differ on whether it's $50 or $100) and offers to call the debt square if Rossiter gives him the severed finger.
• He further promises Rossiter a quarter of a million dollars in the future if the hoax pays off, on the condition that Rossiter keep quiet if he hears about the finger in the news.
• Chuck mentions that Rossiter himself may have called the tip line later when he realized he was not getting any payout, though Josh notes Wendy's has never confirmed who got the reward money.
Dispute over reward payment[46:51]
• Initially, media reports suggest Mike Casey and another anonymous caller will split the $100,000 reward.
• A later article quotes Casey saying that Wendy's never paid him the money, and the hosts say they could not find definitive evidence either way about payout of the reward.

Forensic inconsistencies and collapse of Ayala's story

Details of how the finger was prepared and planted

Ayala's later admission about cooking the finger[46:10]
• After her conviction, Ayala reveals more details, including that she did cook the finger somewhat before placing it in the chili.
• The forensic expert had already noted it was not cooked for three hours at 170°F in chili, but it also was not completely raw, supporting the idea of limited cooking in a pan.

Contradictions in Ayala's account

Lack of bite marks and vomiting evidence[46:33]
• Forensic analysis shows there are no bite marks on the finger, contradicting Ayala's claim that she bit into it.
• Ayala testifies later that she vomited in the restaurant after finding the finger, but multiple witnesses and employees say they did not see her throw up and there is no physical evidence of vomit in the restaurant or bathroom.
• Her in-laws testify that they saw her throw up, but this conflicts with others' accounts and the lack of physical evidence.

Legal outcomes, financial impacts, and similar cases

Charges, sentences, and restitution

Grand theft convictions and prison time[47:06]
• Ayala and Plascencia are charged with grand theft for defrauding Wendy's, among other counts.
• Ayala is sentenced to nine years in prison; Plascencia receives a 12-year sentence that includes time for his child-support violations.
• Ayala serves roughly four years of her nine-year sentence before being released; Josh says he is unsure how long Plascencia actually serves.
Financial losses to Wendy's and restitution orders[47:43]
• Chuck cites that Wendy's reportedly lost about $2.5 million in "verifiable" lost revenue, especially in the Bay Area.
• Due to reduced customer traffic, Wendy's stores had to cut employees' hours; Ayala and Plascencia are ordered to pay about $170,000 in lost wages to these employees.
• They are also ordered to pay $500,000 to JEM Management, the franchise owner of the affected Wendy's, and additional amounts to Wendy's corporate if they ever profit from the crime.
Ban from Wendy's restaurants[48:12]
• Ayala is officially banned from Wendy's as part of the outcome, prompting Josh and Chuck to wonder how such a ban could realistically be enforced across all locations.

Other verified cases of fingers in fast food

Examples from Arby's, Kohl's Custard, and TGI Friday's[48:25]
• Chuck lists several real cases: Arby's (two finger incidents between 2004 and 2012), Kohl's Frozen Custard in Wilmington, North Carolina (finger found in 2005), and TGI Friday's (finger in a hamburger in 2006).
• In these cases, investigations show the fingers came from industrial or kitchen accidents in the supply chain or restaurant, unlike the planted Wendy's fingertip.
• Josh assumes there were likely quiet settlements in these real contamination cases.

Reflection on the Wendy's case as a whole

Moral judgment of Ayala and Plascencia[49:15]
• Josh calls them "the worst kind of people," criticizing those who repeatedly scam and sue rather than working for money.
• He points out that their actions harmed not just a corporation but also ordinary workers whose hours and wages were cut.
Clarifying Wendy's responsibility[49:20]
• Josh emphasizes in closing that Wendy's did not put a finger in anyone's chili in this case and that the contamination was the result of a deliberate external fraud.
• He offers a kind of "shout out" to Wendy's, making clear they were victims rather than perpetrators in this story.

Listener mail: Adidas vs Puma feud follow-up

Email from listener about Herzogenaurach and brand loyalty

Personal connection to Adidas and Puma rivalry[50:04]
• A listener named Jennifer writes that her father is from Herzogenaurach, the German town central to the Adidas-Puma feud previously covered on the show.
• Her family was an Adidas family; her godmother, Aunt Helga, worked for Adidas as an administrative assistant for years.
Reference to the mayor who wore one Adidas and one Puma shoe[50:04]
• Jennifer reacts to the hosts' earlier mention of Dr. German Hocker, the Herzogenaurach mayor who refereed a soccer match wearing one Adidas shoe and one Puma shoe.
• She notes that her uncle Hans was mayor just before Hocker and that he never would have been caught wearing even one Puma shoe due to family Adidas loyalty.
Ongoing family brand rivalry and teaching SYSK in class[50:38]
• She admits that when she finally bought Puma gear in the early 2000s, her German relatives jokingly called her a "traitor," showing the feud's lingering cultural impact.
• Jennifer also mentions she uses Stuff You Should Know in her 12th-grade government and civics classroom, and that her students enjoy it.

Hosts' reaction and sign-off

Closing thanks and contact information[51:13]
• Josh thanks Jennifer and her class, then invites listeners to visit stuffyoushouldknow.com for social media links or email the show at stuffpodcast@iheartradio.com.

Lessons Learned

Actionable insights and wisdom you can apply to your business, career, and personal life.

1

Patterns of behavior matter: a long history of questionable lawsuits and scams can be a key signal of underlying intent and credibility when evaluating dramatic claims.

Reflection Questions:

  • • What recurring patterns in your own or others' behavior might be signaling deeper motives or habits that you've been overlooking?
  • • How could you more systematically check for a person's or organization's track record before accepting their claims or entering into an agreement?
  • • The next time someone presents you with a high-stakes story or opportunity, what specific background checks or reference points will you review before committing?
2

Quiet, thorough investigation paired with careful public communication is often the best way for organizations to respond to crises without escalating conflict or appearing defensive.

Reflection Questions:

  • • When your work or reputation is challenged, how quickly do you shift from reacting emotionally to gathering hard facts and evidence?
  • • In a current or recent conflict, how might separating behind-the-scenes fact-finding from public messaging have led to a better outcome?
  • • What concrete steps can you put in place now (processes, people, protocols) so that your team is prepared to handle a reputational crisis calmly and methodically?
3

Forensic and technical details-like cooking temperatures, DNA, and physical evidence-can decisively cut through stories and narratives, so decisions should be anchored in verifiable data whenever possible.

Reflection Questions:

  • • Where in your personal or professional life are you currently relying more on anecdotes and assumptions than on verifiable data?
  • • How could you bring more 'forensic' style thinking-checking physical facts, timelines, and specifics-into the way you evaluate competing explanations?
  • • What one decision you're facing this month would benefit from a more rigorous evidence-gathering process before you choose a course of action?
4

Short-term scams and shortcuts can have long-term, disproportionate costs-not just for perpetrators but for innocent people and frontline workers caught in the blast radius.

Reflection Questions:

  • • Have you ever been tempted to cut a corner or bend the rules, and how might the potential ripple effects on others change your calculus now?
  • • In your organization or community, where might seemingly small ethical lapses be creating hidden costs for people who have little power to push back?
  • • What safeguards or personal rules can you adopt to ensure you pursue financial and career gains in ways that don't compromise others' livelihoods or trust?
5

Sensational media stories can quickly shape public perception, but that perception is often incomplete or wrong until deeper investigations unfold, so healthy skepticism is essential.

Reflection Questions:

  • • When you encounter a shocking headline, what questions could you ask yourself before forming a strong opinion or sharing it with others?
  • • How might waiting for more information and seeking multiple sources change the way you react to high-profile scandals or viral stories?
  • • What practical habit-like a 24-hour pause before reposting news-could you adopt to improve your media literacy and reduce your susceptibility to incomplete narratives?
6

Incentive structures like tip-line rewards can be powerful tools for uncovering the truth, but they work best when combined with cross-checking, corroboration, and careful evaluation of motives.

Reflection Questions:

  • • Where in your life or work could you align incentives better so that people are rewarded for bringing forward useful, honest information?
  • • How can you design rewards or recognition systems that encourage truth-telling without creating perverse incentives for exaggeration or false claims?
  • • What current problem you're facing could be addressed by eliciting more input from others, and how might you structure that input so it can be cross-checked and trusted?

Episode Summary - Notes by Cameron

Selects: The Great Finger in the Wendy's Chili Caper
0:00 0:00