argumentA line of reasoning from premises to a conclusion. Like a claim, it belongs to no one who makes it.constitution →

Evidence from practice

forThis argument, if it holds, bears in favour of the claim.constitution →Systematic search for defeaters surfaces weaknesses that positive safety arguments overlook

The argument

Because defeater analyses of real-world assurance cases identify concrete weaknesses in their arguments and evidence, and those weaknesses stood unaddressed in cases their developers had judged sound, the surfacing effect the claim describes is observed directly in practice, not only inferred from the psychology of debiasing.

Does it work?

Not yet evaluated.

Premises

SupportedThe evidence favors the claim, but the examination is incomplete or the evidence is indirect.constitution →Defeater analyses of real-world assurance cases identify concrete weaknesses in their arguments and evidence

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.

Earlier ratings

Jul 27, 2026
The inference is direct: observed instances of the effect are evidence for the effect. The argument stands or falls with whether defeater analyses of real assurance cases in fact identify concrete weaknesses, which is not yet assessed but is documented in experience reports and a taxonomy of defeaters raised against deployed cases. The caveat inherent in this kind of evidence is selection: practitioners who publish defeater analyses are those for whom the method produced results, so the reports establish existence of the effect better than its typical size.