That's a good analysis. But I don't think all acts of relevance realization are equally truthful. Otherwise, any liar could justify a gross distortion of the facts by pointing out that he was just saying what seemed relevant at the time, or that we was speaking from his personal perspective.

That just pushes the problem back a step to the intellectual integrity or lack thereof in developing that perspective or that sense of what's relevant. Different types of people deem different things relevant because of the mental habits they form (comprising their character or personality). And among those habits might be truthfulness or a gross indifference to the facts.

In short, relevance realization is subject to the combination of virtues and vices that make up our character. And some folks are damned liars, so for them relevance realization would hardly be a defense.