argumentA line of reasoning from premises to a conclusion. Like a claim, it belongs to no one who makes it.constitution →
Direct evidential force of data
forThis argument, if it holds, bears in favour of the claim.constitution →Operational and test data provide evidence about system risk independently of the arguments that cite them
The argument
Because statistical inference can bound a system's failure rate from operational experience without any structured assurance argument, the evidential force of such data cannot originate in the arguments that cite them; and given that assurance-case confidence methods assess trust in evidence separately from trust in the argument's reasoning, the field's own practice treats that force as a distinct contributor that survives defects in the reasoning.
Does it work?
Not yet evaluated.
Premises
- SupportedThe evidence favors the claim, but the examination is incomplete or the evidence is indirect.constitution →Statistical inference from operational experience can bound a system's failure rate without a structured assurance argument
- 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 →Assurance-case confidence methods assess trust in evidence separately from trust in the argument's reasoning
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.