I think we can at least say from a simple subjectivist point of view, that I am in fact reading the question; you said you are, and from said point of view we need no further justification.
The problem comes when we do try to justify my answer. Assuming the equality of all people in regards to as seemingly simple a task as judging whether or not one is reading the question, what would be the point of someone next to me affirming that I am reading the question if I can't affirm it myself?
Mathematically speaking, if my opinion as to this matter does not add to its validity, then how would someone else's agreement do that if their opinion standing alone would also be insufficient. The sum of all opinions can't approach whatever the required threshold is, if the very thing we are questioning is the value of one opinion.
This is similar to one of the foundations of mathematical philosophy:
None + None = None
None + Few = Few
None + Many = Many
Few + Few = ?
Few + Many = Many
Many + Many = Many
Here, "few" has a value in between the least and most, and without numerically defining the thresholds for few and many, we really don't know how many times we must add few together to achieve many.
So if one person believes I am reading the question, and their opinion is worth x, then how many x's does it take to reach affirmation? Is a verification by a second party worth more than my original statement? If so, why?