Scholars differed over reports from narrators associated with the second type, innovation not judged to entail unbelief. Some tended toward general rejection, some toward general acceptance, and an influential distinction considered whether a person actively propagated the position or did not propagate it.
The reason for disagreement is that a mistaken belief does not necessarily entail deliberate fabrication or distorted transmission. Some transmitters remain scrupulously truthful despite serious theological mistakes, while active advocates may be more exposed to a conflict of interest when a report supports their view.
Thus the investigation cannot stop at group affiliation; it must evaluate truthfulness, actual reporting behavior, and the evidence of bias.
Yet being an advocate is not the sole criterion. Ibn Hajar also draws attention to the specific content of a report that appears to favour the narrator’s doctrinal position. Being a non-advocate does not by itself remove that content-related point of scrutiny.