I generally perceive a high-ranking military or government official as a more reliable witness than an individual civilian.

Reliability can mean many things in this field. Observational reliability? I'd rather put my faith in a regular street cop to accurately observe and register something rather than a deskjockey. Trustworthyness? I agree they're generally less likely to suffer mental illness - But would they generally be more inclined to have secrets to protect as a direct results of their high level official positions as well?

Furthermore, it’s noteworthy that these individuals are willing to come forward when it appears they have everything to lose and little to gain, barring any undisclosed financial incentives.

If we're talking about the military complex, David Grusch is a man who was prepared to lay down his life in defense of his country. I'd say losing ones reputation is a small request compared to giving ones life. Would a "true patriot" be willing to lie and spend time in jail for it to protect his country? I believe so. It doesn't even have to be a good cause, there's also the possibility of the recent activity in the UFO field is a cover-up, a feint... And Grusch isn't even in on it. Patsies and fall guys isn't a new concept.

The only way for them to avoid this legal scrutiny was to allow him to discuss the matter in general terms.

I will attempt to find a link for reference.

Please do, I'd like to hear the reasoning behind their argument. But please, if you share a podcast... Give me a timestamp! To me it comparable to Grusch threatening with telling mom, from what I've seen of the security complex they would have absolutely no problem with covering this up and disappearing Grusch long before he came into the public's view.

Some of us weigh the testimony from individuals differently than others, thereby leaning into one hypothesis over the others based on this differential attribution of credibility.

Of course. Even accepting or denying just a small claim can have big impacts on the final conclusion, making us believe or assume vastly different things. But I think there has to be some sort of system for how we weigh different testimonies. I've tried to explain the reasons behind my way, not claim that it's the only way. I hope you don't feel I'm ignoring your often good arguments, just because I don't always agree with your conclusions.