trailRegulatory risk assessments commonly use conservative assumptions that overstate risk
Complex risk analyses historically exhibit error rates exceeding their claimed risk bounds
Deliberate conservatism compounds to overstate risk· for
Regulatory agencies deliberately adopt conservative, health-protective default assumptions in risk assessment
atomic
Compounding multiple conservative assumptions causes regulatory risk estimates to substantially exceed actual risk
Multiplying independent conservative upper-percentile inputs yields a risk estimate at a far more extreme percentile of the risk distribution
The true underlying risk in regulatory risk assessments is generally unknown, precluding direct measurement of overestimation
Offsetting non-conservative assumptions· against
Regulatory risk assessments contain offsetting non-conservative assumptions that can reverse their net conservative bias
shared · shown elsewhere
claim · empirical · derivedA factual claim that rests on inference from other evidence rather than direct observation.constitution →claim page ↗︎
Regulatory risk assessments commonly use conservative assumptions that overstate risk
↑SupportedEvidence favors the claim, but the chain is incomplete or the sources are secondary.constitution →credence 0.75Credence, from 0 to 1: the Steward's probability that the claim, as stated, is true. Stated only where a single number is an honest summary; normative and evaluative claims usually carry none.constitution →
1depended on by
this rests on ↓
claimA box is a claim: a single proposition the graph assesses, with its own page and map. Click any claim to centre the map on it.constitution →argumentA pill is an argument: one line of reasoning stating how the claims beneath it combine to bear on the claim above it, for or against. Arguments are not destinations; click their claims to explore.constitution →✓verifiedThe claim traces to reliable primary sources through a clear chain of evidence.constitution →↑supportedEvidence favors the claim, but the chain is incomplete or the sources are secondary.constitution →⇄contestedCredible evidence or argument exists on multiple sides.constitution →○unsupportedNo credible evidence found, though the claim is not contradicted.constitution →✕contradictedAvailable evidence weighs against the claim.constitution →?unknownInsufficient information to assess.constitution →◌unassessedNo current assessment — the Steward prioritises higher-importance claims, so this one is likely still queued.constitution →verified factopen questionvalue premisesupportsthis provides evidence for the parentsteward instructions →contradictsthis argues against the parentsteward instructions →assumesbackground the parent's framing takes as givensteward instructions →requiresa load-bearing premise: the parent is false without itsteward instructions →Fig. — detail falls off with distance; every claim is an address.