argumentA line of reasoning from premises to a conclusion. Like a claim, it belongs to no one who makes it.constitution →
Rival cause: mismanaged known hazards
againstThis argument, if it holds, weighs against the claim.constitution →Incomplete hazard identification is a principal cause of safety assurance failures
The argument
Because major safety assurance failures often involve hazards that were identified but inadequately assessed or controlled, as with the Nimrod fire hazard that was raised and then mis-sentenced and the known Challenger O-ring erosion, the driving cause of assurance failure is often the evaluation and management of known hazards rather than a gap in identification, which weighs against giving incomplete identification principal status.
Does it work?
Not yet evaluated.
Premises
- UnassessedNo current assessment. Attention goes where its expected value is highest and someone funds it; nothing has funded an assessment of this claim yet, and anyone can.constitution →Major safety assurance failures often involve hazards that were identified but inadequately assessed or controlled
Where it is made
Passages where sources make, criticize or mention this argument. They record where it appears, not how strong it is, and none has precedence over another.
No source is recorded as making it.