Browse
Claims
Search the graph by meaning. Each result carries its current verdict; open one to see its decomposition, provenance, and the reasoning behind the assessment.
ShowingImportancePrizesTopicSafety assurance
Structured arguments, safety cases, and evidence used to establish that a system is acceptably safe, including hazard analysis and the epistemic strength and error bounds of such arguments. Covers claims about how much confidence a safety argument can support; not the object-level safety of any specific named system.
In adversarial settings, small flaws in a safety argument can be exploited into complete failure
SupportedEvidence favors the claim, but the chain is incomplete or the sources are secondary.constitution →empirical · derivedA factual claim that rests on inference from other evidence rather than direct observation.constitution →Adversarial robustnessimportance · minorImportance 0.40, from 0 to 1 · minor: narrow or largely settled, cheap to get right. Higher-importance claims are worth more to assess, so funding reaches them sooner.constitution →
Accreditation, liability, and reputational stakes give commissioned safety assessors countervailing incentives toward rigor
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 →empirical · derivedA factual claim that rests on inference from other evidence rather than direct observation.constitution →Third-party certification reliabilityimportance · minorImportance 0.30, from 0 to 1 · minor: narrow or largely settled, cheap to get right. Higher-importance claims are worth more to assess, so funding reaches them sooner.constitution →
Defeater analyses of real-world assurance cases identify concrete weaknesses in their arguments and evidence
SupportedEvidence favors the claim, but the chain is incomplete or the sources are secondary.constitution →empirical · derivedA factual claim that rests on inference from other evidence rather than direct observation.constitution →Independent adversarial reviewimportance · minorImportance 0.30, from 0 to 1 · minor: narrow or largely settled, cheap to get right. Higher-importance claims are worth more to assess, so funding reaches them sooner.constitution →
Nuclear regulators regularly identify serious shortfalls in reactor safety cases requiring resolution
VerifiedThe claim traces to reliable primary sources through a clear chain of evidence.constitution →empirical · derivedA factual claim that rests on inference from other evidence rather than direct observation.constitution →Nuclear power safetyRegulatory risk assessmentimportance · minorImportance 0.30, from 0 to 1 · minor: narrow or largely settled, cheap to get right. Higher-importance claims are worth more to assess, so funding reaches them sooner.constitution →
Complex risk analyses historically exhibit error rates exceeding their claimed risk bounds
SupportedEvidence favors the claim, but the chain is incomplete or the sources are secondary.constitution →empirical · derivedA factual claim that rests on inference from other evidence rather than direct observation.constitution →Probabilistic risk assessmentStatistical Uncertainty Analysisimportance · minorImportance 0.35, from 0 to 1 · minor: narrow or largely settled, cheap to get right. Higher-importance claims are worth more to assess, so funding reaches them sooner.constitution →
Evidence assembled in a safety argument retains value even if the argument's reasoning is flawed
SupportedEvidence favors the claim, but the chain is incomplete or the sources are secondary.constitution →empirical · derivedA factual claim that rests on inference from other evidence rather than direct observation.constitution →Evidence value in safety argumentsimportance · minorImportance 0.30, from 0 to 1 · minor: narrow or largely settled, cheap to get right. Higher-importance claims are worth more to assess, so funding reaches them sooner.constitution →
Safety case reviewers are commonly commissioned by the developer, creating incentives toward confirmatory sign-off
SupportedEvidence favors the claim, but the chain is incomplete or the sources are secondary.constitution →empirical · derivedA factual claim that rests on inference from other evidence rather than direct observation.constitution →Independent adversarial reviewConfirmation biasimportance · minorImportance 0.35, from 0 to 1 · minor: narrow or largely settled, cheap to get right. Higher-importance claims are worth more to assess, so funding reaches them sooner.constitution →
Independent adversarial review detects significant flaws that safety case developers overlook
SupportedEvidence favors the claim, but the chain is incomplete or the sources are secondary.constitution →empirical · derivedA factual claim that rests on inference from other evidence rather than direct observation.constitution →Independent adversarial reviewimportance · minorImportance 0.40, from 0 to 1 · minor: narrow or largely settled, cheap to get right. Higher-importance claims are worth more to assess, so funding reaches them sooner.constitution →
Statistical inference from operational experience can bound a system's failure rate without a structured assurance argument
SupportedEvidence favors the claim, but the chain is incomplete or the sources are secondary.constitution →empirical · derivedA factual claim that rests on inference from other evidence rather than direct observation.constitution →Probabilistic risk assessmentStatistical Uncertainty Analysisimportance · minorImportance 0.30, from 0 to 1 · minor: narrow or largely settled, cheap to get right. Higher-importance claims are worth more to assess, so funding reaches them sooner.constitution →
Defeater analysis and independent adversarial review can substantially mitigate confirmation bias in safety cases
SupportedEvidence favors the claim, but the chain is incomplete or the sources are secondary.constitution →empirical · derivedA factual claim that rests on inference from other evidence rather than direct observation.constitution →Confirmation biasIndependent adversarial reviewimportance · notableImportance 0.45, from 0 to 1 · notable: a contested point in a live debate (also the default before judging). Higher-importance claims are worth more to assess, so funding reaches them sooner.constitution →
Safety cases are prone to confirmation bias toward a predetermined conclusion of safety
SupportedEvidence favors the claim, but the chain is incomplete or the sources are secondary.constitution →empirical · derivedA factual claim that rests on inference from other evidence rather than direct observation.constitution →Confirmation biasimportance · notableImportance 0.45, from 0 to 1 · notable: a contested point in a live debate (also the default before judging). Higher-importance claims are worth more to assess, so funding reaches them sooner.constitution →
Operational and test data provide evidence about system risk independently of the arguments that cite them
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 →empirical · derivedA factual claim that rests on inference from other evidence rather than direct observation.constitution →importance · minorImportance 0.30, from 0 to 1 · minor: narrow or largely settled, cheap to get right. Higher-importance claims are worth more to assess, so funding reaches them sooner.constitution →
Standard statistical methods yield confidence bounds on a system's failure rate from failure-free operational exposure
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 →empirical · derivedA factual claim that rests on inference from other evidence rather than direct observation.constitution →Statistical Uncertainty AnalysisLow-probability riskimportance · settledImportance 0.15, from 0 to 1 · settled: uncontested, so low even when much depends on it. Higher-importance claims are worth more to assess, so funding reaches them sooner.constitution →
The probability of error in a safety argument bounds the confidence it can provide about low-probability risks
SupportedEvidence favors the claim, but the chain is incomplete or the sources are secondary.constitution →empirical · derivedA factual claim that rests on inference from other evidence rather than direct observation.constitution →Low-probability riskimportance · notableImportance 0.50, from 0 to 1 · notable: a contested point in a live debate (also the default before judging). Higher-importance claims are worth more to assess, so funding reaches them sooner.constitution →
Published LHC black hole risk analyses do not establish that catastrophic risk is negligible.
ContestedCredible evidence or argument exists on multiple sides.constitution →evaluativeA judgment of worth or quality against some standard: good, fair, effective.constitution →LHC safetyMicro black holesLow-probability riskimportance · notableImportance 0.45, from 0 to 1 · notable: a contested point in a live debate (also the default before judging). Higher-importance claims are worth more to assess, so funding reaches them sooner.constitution →
Independent review of safety cases, as institutionally practiced, often fails to detect major deficiencies
SupportedEvidence favors the claim, but the chain is incomplete or the sources are secondary.constitution →empirical · derivedA factual claim that rests on inference from other evidence rather than direct observation.constitution →Independent adversarial reviewimportance · notableImportance 0.50, from 0 to 1 · notable: a contested point in a live debate (also the default before judging). Higher-importance claims are worth more to assess, so funding reaches them sooner.constitution →
Major safety assurance failures often involve hazards that were identified but inadequately assessed or controlled
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 →empirical · derivedA factual claim that rests on inference from other evidence rather than direct observation.constitution →Hazard identificationimportance · minorImportance 0.35, from 0 to 1 · minor: narrow or largely settled, cheap to get right. Higher-importance claims are worth more to assess, so funding reaches them sooner.constitution →
Traditional hazard analysis techniques miss hazards arising from component interactions in complex software-intensive systems
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 →empirical · derivedA factual claim that rests on inference from other evidence rather than direct observation.constitution →Component interaction hazardsHazard identificationimportance · minorImportance 0.35, from 0 to 1 · minor: narrow or largely settled, cheap to get right. Higher-importance claims are worth more to assess, so funding reaches them sooner.constitution →
Accident investigations frequently find hazards that prior hazard analyses failed to identify
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 →empirical · derivedA factual claim that rests on inference from other evidence rather than direct observation.constitution →Hazard identificationimportance · minorImportance 0.35, from 0 to 1 · minor: narrow or largely settled, cheap to get right. Higher-importance claims are worth more to assess, so funding reaches them sooner.constitution →
Defeater identification in assurance cases is itself prone to bias and incompleteness
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 →empirical · derivedA factual claim that rests on inference from other evidence rather than direct observation.constitution →Confirmation biasIndependent adversarial reviewimportance · minorImportance 0.30, from 0 to 1 · minor: narrow or largely settled, cheap to get right. Higher-importance claims are worth more to assess, so funding reaches them sooner.constitution →
Incomplete hazard identification is a principal cause of safety assurance failures
SupportedEvidence favors the claim, but the chain is incomplete or the sources are secondary.constitution →empirical · derivedA factual claim that rests on inference from other evidence rather than direct observation.constitution →Hazard identificationimportance · minorImportance 0.35, from 0 to 1 · minor: narrow or largely settled, cheap to get right. Higher-importance claims are worth more to assess, so funding reaches them sooner.constitution →
Multiple independent safety arguments can jointly provide confidence exceeding any single argument's error bound
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 →empirical · derivedA factual claim that rests on inference from other evidence rather than direct observation.constitution →Assurance deficit compensationimportance · minorImportance 0.25, from 0 to 1 · minor: narrow or largely settled, cheap to get right. Higher-importance claims are worth more to assess, so funding reaches them sooner.constitution →
Safety arguments with minor flaws often remain approximately correct
SupportedEvidence favors the claim, but the chain is incomplete or the sources are secondary.constitution →empirical · derivedA factual claim that rests on inference from other evidence rather than direct observation.constitution →importance · minorImportance 0.35, from 0 to 1 · minor: narrow or largely settled, cheap to get right. Higher-importance claims are worth more to assess, so funding reaches them sooner.constitution →
Systematic search for defeaters surfaces weaknesses that positive safety arguments overlook
SupportedEvidence favors the claim, but the chain is incomplete or the sources are secondary.constitution →empirical · derivedA factual claim that rests on inference from other evidence rather than direct observation.constitution →Independent adversarial reviewimportance · minorImportance 0.35, from 0 to 1 · minor: narrow or largely settled, cheap to get right. Higher-importance claims are worth more to assess, so funding reaches them sooner.constitution →
The evidential weight of test data for operational risk depends on assumptions about test representativeness
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 →empirical · derivedA factual claim that rests on inference from other evidence rather than direct observation.constitution →Test representativenessimportance · settledImportance 0.20, from 0 to 1 · settled: uncontested, so low even when much depends on it. Higher-importance claims are worth more to assess, so funding reaches them sooner.constitution →
Assurance-case confidence methods assess trust in evidence separately from trust in the argument's reasoning
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 →empirical · derivedA factual claim that rests on inference from other evidence rather than direct observation.constitution →Evidence trust versus argument trustimportance · settledImportance 0.20, from 0 to 1 · settled: uncontested, so low even when much depends on it. Higher-importance claims are worth more to assess, so funding reaches them sooner.constitution →
A flawed safety argument provides little evidence about the risk it assesses
ContestedCredible evidence or argument exists on multiple sides.constitution →empirical · derivedA factual claim that rests on inference from other evidence rather than direct observation.constitution →importance · minorImportance 0.35, from 0 to 1 · minor: narrow or largely settled, cheap to get right. Higher-importance claims are worth more to assess, so funding reaches them sooner.constitution →
Residual assurance deficits in a safety case can be acceptable when compensated by other arguments and evidence
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 →empirical · derivedA factual claim that rests on inference from other evidence rather than direct observation.constitution →Assurance deficit compensationimportance · minorImportance 0.25, from 0 to 1 · minor: narrow or largely settled, cheap to get right. Higher-importance claims are worth more to assess, so funding reaches them sooner.constitution →
Safety case assessors are typically contracted and paid by the developer or project whose system they review
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 →empirical · derivedA factual claim that rests on inference from other evidence rather than direct observation.constitution →Client-Pays Evaluator Conflictimportance · settledImportance 0.20, from 0 to 1 · settled: uncontested, so low even when much depends on it. Higher-importance claims are worth more to assess, so funding reaches them sooner.constitution →
QinetiQ failed to properly carry out its role as independent advisor on the Nimrod safety case
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 →empirical · derivedA factual claim that rests on inference from other evidence rather than direct observation.constitution →Nimrod safety caseimportance · settledImportance 0.20, from 0 to 1 · settled: uncontested, so low even when much depends on it. Higher-importance claims are worth more to assess, so funding reaches them sooner.constitution →
The Nimrod Review found the Nimrod safety case was a paperwork exercise that missed key dangers
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 →empirical · derivedA factual claim that rests on inference from other evidence rather than direct observation.constitution →Nimrod ReviewHazard identificationimportance · settledImportance 0.20, from 0 to 1 · settled: uncontested, so low even when much depends on it. Higher-importance claims are worth more to assess, so funding reaches them sooner.constitution →
Safety cases are typically produced by the developer or operator of the system being assessed
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 →empirical · derivedA factual claim that rests on inference from other evidence rather than direct observation.constitution →Safety case producer independenceimportance · settledImportance 0.15, from 0 to 1 · settled: uncontested, so low even when much depends on it. Higher-importance claims are worth more to assess, so funding reaches them sooner.constitution →
Statistical testing alone cannot demonstrate the ultra-low failure rates required of safety-critical systems
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 →empirical · derivedA factual claim that rests on inference from other evidence rather than direct observation.constitution →Low-probability riskimportance · settledImportance 0.20, from 0 to 1 · settled: uncontested, so low even when much depends on it. Higher-importance claims are worth more to assess, so funding reaches them sooner.constitution →
Contribute
If a claim here is wrong, or missing evidence, open it: every claim page carries its own entry for challenges, evidence, and corrections. If the graph is missing a claim entirely, propose it below. A proposal is reviewed on its merits; accepted claims are matched against the graph and enter it with their reasoning on record.