Search for counterevidence
Once a forecast has a plausible explanation, ask what would make its favored conclusion false. The purpose is to test important assumptions, not to add a balancing sentence or mechanically move the estimate toward 50%.
Start with a contrary pathway that could materially change the outcome. For a launch forecast, the strongest opposing pathway might be that a readiness demo hides an unresolved integration dependency. Turn that concern into a falsifiable test: an independent integration run, an observable dependency milestone, or an operational readiness measure.
Record a testable challenge
workflow::Challenge records an alternative, a falsifiable test, the evidence needed, and an Indicator model. It is a planning record. It does not represent evidence that the alternative occurred, and creating it does not run a search or schedule a task.
| Element | Example |
|---|---|
| Alternative | The release is delayed by an integration defect |
| Falsifiable test | A specified end-to-end test fails before the review date |
| Evidence needed | An independently attributable test result with an observation date |
| Probability effect | Explicit conditional branches for pass and failure |
A useful challenge can reveal a missing scenario or change the reference class. It can also leave the probability unchanged after the concern is examined. Preserve the result and why it did or did not alter the estimate.
Avoid fabricated balance
A failure story is not an observation. A model-generated opposing narrative is not an independent expert. A second phrasing of the same source is not a new origin. Keep hypothetical pathways separate from dated, attributable evidence in the forecast record.
Prioritize cruxes with both material probability sensitivity and feasible tests. A remote speculation with no observable consequence may consume effort without improving the forecast. Indicators help quantify sensitivity; decision value helps determine whether obtaining the observation could change an action.
Stop deliberately
Stop when the highest-impact plausible contrary pathway has been examined to the available depth, when further sources repeat the same origin, or when an access limit prevents verification. Report the remaining uncertainty instead of inventing a countervailing fact.
The next review trigger should identify what new observation would justify reopening the issue. “Review again” is less useful than “review after independently verified completion of dependency Y.”