I think there’s a significant difference between using potential motivation to assess the credibility of sources of information and using potential motivation as the basis for creating a narrative about something.

Of course, but the thing about that test ("do you trust Coca Cola or Reuters") doesn't seem make distinction between this. Even if it asked "why", it would still put a considerate reader and a conspiracy believer in the same bin.

If there's a website showing Coca Cola logo with Coca Cola's contact number being displayed there, and then another screenshot of Reuters logo and a contact number, claiming to be a contact number that Coca Cola shared to them at some point.

Which one is more reliable and credible?

Some animals quack like a duck, but turn out to be male wood frogs.

Is it conspiratorial to think that:

1. Some news will publish anything with the goal of getting clicks. Misleading headlines.

2. News sites will try to hide whether something is sponsored content, because then sponsors are willing to pay more money.

3. News sites are influenced by their leadership views, views in the company and also by the sources that donate money to these news sites.

4 ... believing there are bunch of other incentives that can go against the exact truth or truthful bias.