PSD.10:5.1 - Which flood-pump uncertainty matters now?

In the illustrative pre-season inquiry, nominal permanent and mobile capacity meets the assumed inflow only with the stated units operating. The model omits arrival delay. The team cannot turn that conditional result into “mobile service is reliable”.

Relied-on or proposed claim	Evidence limit	Decision-linked return
Nominal mobile capacity is adequate.	The capacity calculation assumes operating units on site.	Use for capacity only. It does not discriminate the missing deployment arrangement.
Mobile units can serve the district after road loss.	No qualified arrival and deployment result exists for that condition.	Ask for the route-loss deployment result; M remains conditional for the service comparison.
The two technical models corroborate the inflow assumption.	They reuse the same inflow dataset.	Retain one shared evidence dependency, not two confirmations.
Pumping-service hours represent all affected residents’ loss.	Reachable assistance and property protection have different meanings.	Return the missing consequence relation or keep separate accounts; a tighter inflow estimate will not settle the value question.

If a direct deployment result later supports a bounded arrival range, the account changes only the affected claim and its uses. If the range still spans service failure, the result is a discriminating question for robustness, not an unconditional feasibility claim. If all arrangements share an unsupported power-supply assumption, that common uncertainty can invalidate all of them even while their relative order stays fixed.