PSD.10:11 - SoTA-Echoing

Practice question	Best-known line	Serious alternative or default	Defect overcome and pattern mutation	Source roles and limits	Reopen condition
When should uncertainty be probabilistic, and when should alternatives remain conditional?	Use qualified probabilistic analysis where its premises hold; retain multiple plausible conditions when decision-relevant probabilities or models are unsettled.	Predict-then-act under one agreed forecast, or reject all probabilistic reasoning whenever uncertainty is difficult.	Adapt: :4.1–:4.4 select the representation by the actual basis and test shared failure. Additional scenario work is accepted only when one forecast could conceal a material reversal.	Lempert et al.’s 2024 DMDU/IPCC analysis is the synthesis candidate for decision relevance despite low-confidence knowledge. It does not make scenarios equiprobable or provide a universal uncertainty taxonomy or local risk threshold.	Reopen when a qualified distribution becomes available, model disagreement changes, or an omitted future defeats the claimed bounds.
Which missing evidence deserves a question?	Connect elicitation, sensitivity, and information acquisition to the alternatives and consequences they can change.	Rank unknowns by variance or confidence alone.	Adapt: :4.5–:4.6 require a discriminating question before further inquiry. The practical trade-off is less general data collection for a more explicit decision boundary.	Borgonovo et al.’s 2026 review supplies the current decision-analysis connection among uncertainty, sensitivity, and information value. It is a synthesis, not validation of PSD’s particular evidence or a universal probe rule. `A.10` supplies only bounded reliance; `C.11` retains actual local probe choice.	Reopen if another unknown can change eligibility, a model revision changes the discriminator, or no feasible inquiry fits the decision window.