Original text:
4.2. <del> Authoritative entities, such as auditing or code-review companies, a certification entities or a government bodies, continuously produce endorsements about software products and identifiable software components.  Endorsements can include statements vouching for the trustworthiness of a software product or the lack thereof.  Consumers of these endorsements include entities, such as distributing entities, as well as end users.  There can be one or more endorsing entities that produce endorsements relevant to one or more of these consumer groups.  Discovery off all sources of endorsements and/or the identity of endorsing entities is creating significant cost not all consumer groups can afford.  Some endorsers actively do not acknowledge other endorsers that highlight a lack of trustworthiness of certain released software products.  In the end, identifying all relevant endorsements from multiple sources typically ends up to be a </del>  responsibility of the consumer. <del> As a consumer of released software wants: * to offload the burden of identifying all relevant authoritative or relevant endorsing entities to a entity they * to offload the burden to filter from and select all endorsements that are applicable to the released software product * to make informed decisions on which endorsing entities to believe based on the best visibility of all endorsing entities possible </del>  There is no standardized way to: * aggregate large numbers of related <del> endorsements in one place and discover them there * of referencing other endorsements via an endorsement * identify or discover all (or at least a critical mass) relevant endorsing entities </del>  4.3.

Reviewer comments:
Modified the 'Scalable Determination of Trustworthiness in Multi-Stakeholder Ecosystems' use case to improve lay person understanding by reducing the number of terms introduced.
thank you! lgtm

Revised text:
4.2.  <ins> Authoritative entities, such as auditing or code-review companies, certification entities or government bodies, continuously produce statements about software products and identifiable software components.  Such statements can vouch for the trustworthiness of a software product or the lack thereof.  Consumers of these statements include entities, such as distributing entities, as well as end users.  There can be one or more entities that produce statements relevant to one or more of these consumer groups.  Discovery of all sources of statements and/or the identity of authoritative entities creates significant cost not all consumer groups can afford.  Some authoritative entities actively do not acknowledge other authoritative entities that highlight a lack of trustworthiness of certain released software products.  In the end, identifying all relevant statements from multiple sources typically ends up to be a </ins> responsibility of the consumer.  <ins> A consumer of released software wants: * to offload the burden of identifying all relevant authoritative entities to an entity who does this on their behalf * to offload the burden to filter from and select all statements that are applicable to the released software product to an entity who does this on their behalf * to make informed decisions on which authoritative entities to believe based on the best visibility of all authoritative entities possible </ins> There is no standardized way to: * aggregate large numbers of related  <ins> statements in one place and discover them there * referencing other statements via a statement * identifing or discover all (or at least a critical mass) of relevant authoritative entities </ins> 4.3.