> "... but the record would be heavily tagged with notices that it was a false accusation ..."

There's been some literature lately about people trusting their doctors/lawyers/etc. more when that person reveals that they have a conflict of interest. A similar backfire effect could well occur here.

> " ... it would be a severe breach of social norms to use that information turn him down for a relationship ..."

Oh good. Approximately when can we expect the social norms to change? And are you accounting for the fact that it may happen never?

> There's been some literature lately about people trusting their doctors/lawyers/etc. more when that person reveals that they have a conflict of interest. A similar backfire effect could well occur here.

A file stating that an accusation was false isn't admitting doubts or uncertainty, though, and it's that admission that leads people to trust advisors more when they reveal conflicts of interest. That file is flatly and loudly stating that the accusation was false.

> Oh good. Approximately when can we expect the social norms to change? And are you accounting for the fact that it may happen never?

Oh good. Approximately when can we expect law to change? And are you accounting for the fact that it may happen never?

In the relationship case its basically pretty much impossible to legislate norms of behaviour in any reasonable period of time (it would be multi-generational if possible at all). For the job applications we all know hiring managers discriminate even when its against the law due to either their explicit or implicit biases. They can find very reasonable and legal explanations for rejection that they probably even sincerely believe themselves.

That being said, there is role for legislation--for example, there is a lot of research into implicit and explicit biases in human minds, and there could be more public funding on how to reverse these biases, and implement them as a standard part of the curriculum in public schools.