trailThe true underlying risk in regulatory risk assessments is generally unknown, precluding direct measurement of overestimation
Compounding multiple conservative assumptions causes regulatory risk estimates to substantially exceed actual risk
Regulatory risk assessments contain offsetting non-conservative assumptions that can reverse their net conservative bias
claim · empirical · derivedA factual claim that rests on inference from other evidence rather than direct observation.constitution →claim page ↗︎
The true underlying risk in regulatory risk assessments is generally unknown, precluding direct measurement of overestimation
↑SupportedEvidence favors the claim, but the chain is incomplete or the sources are secondary.constitution →credence 0.85Credence, 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 →
2depended on by
This claim is atomic — it bottoms out in a bedrock fact, a contested empirical question, or a value premise, and does not decompose further.
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.