SJIP: Likelihood is not considered during judging

[WangSecurity]

Description

Clarify that likelihood shouldn't be considered when identifying the validity and the sevetity of the report.

Judging Guidelines PR

https://github.com/sherlock-protocol/sherlock-v2-docs/pull/55/files

Rationale

It's often the case that Watsons/Judges are basing their judgement on the likelihood of the issue happening. However, on Sherlock, issues should be judged based on the impact and constraints. Hence, the goal of this SJIP is to clarify the Watsons/Judges shouldn't base their judgements on the likelihood.

Relevant Issue Discussions

No specific discussion.

[midori-fuse]

Please define "likelihood" and "constraints".

Brute forcing a private key/CREATE2 collision has a non-zero likelihood of success, and the only constraint is that I have to own a computer.

[IllIllI000]

perhaps the logic used during the maker contest could be generalized and codified. I believe the discussion was deleted, so Sherlock would have to retrieve it

[midori-fuse]

Generalizing this, an "attack path/vuln path" is a scenario where the impact may occur. An issue's "constraint" is a set of conditions that must be met for the attack path/vuln path to be possible. Each of the conditions have a probability to occur, then judging based on constraints is equivalent to judging based on the likelihood of these constraints happening.

Then how is it possible to judge based on constraints but not likelihood? What is the difference between these two?

[IlIlHunterlIlI]

This issue was invalidated on the base of likely hood as far as i remember, can you clarify the difference between judging reason there and this SJIP that says likelihood is not a factor?