First a sidenote, and not to nitpick but I'm not a fan of hyperboles. You never died to a 4 man gank, and you didn't seem to die to 3 man ones in or near a city ever, at least from your PK Deaths. So saying "many many occasions" is incorrect, unless 8. is to be changed to "Tribunal eventually chases outside town and faces a 4 man gank down."

But back to the main point, I'd want to know what standard of evidence you are using when deciding if someone should be given a warrant. Given the typical talk for Tribunals has been don't warrant unless you are absolutely certain (and correct me if I'm wrong here!), then your standard is at the very least "beyond a reasonable doubt."

To use your example, gank group had already set up post on the outskirts in order to try and kill you, and the criminal came along and saw that they were there. The criminal then proceeds to take advantage of that situation. There was no "aiding" there. Unless you are going to warrant based on the fact that the group should have left at that moment and dispersed because to even be there was to "aid." At that point you're basically warranting people for having to take an action to leave an area that theyd have every legal right to be in, just because someone else enters. Which makes absolutely 0 sense to me.

I'll use an own personal example to show a different concept. Person P sees magistrate M fighting criminal C in Hamsah. M words to Galadon. M is now en route back Hamsah on eastern when P sees him. M then detours to go a diff route back to Hamsah. That's at least what P thinks. So P goes and stands right outside the southern gate of Hamsah to hope and catch him walking. Meanwhile, C walks up to the area after P does and stands next to him, thinking the same thing. M then gets attacked, and warrants P. Did P aid? Even though P has his own agenda, M is outside of town, and P got there first? It's quite possible they colluded. It's also just as likely they didn't. Would you warrant P? Let's say they are in the same cabal. Would you warrant P then, even if they never tacitly or explicitly agreed to anything?

My point being, you speak of intent, proximity, and frequency. those are all indeed important factors. But even with all three there, that does not necessarily mean you have met your burden. Even assuming a high success rate, that method will create cases of false flagging. But if you're fine with an X% of people becoming falsely flagged, eh, what can ya do.