PSD.12:4.2 - Bound the changes by evidence and the decision

Identify the uncertainties or judgement changes that could affect this test: input values, future conditions, model structures, consequence definitions, preference models, evidence qualification, candidate membership, or horizon. State why the selected variations are relevant and what they omit.

Ranges and scenarios need a basis. Distinguish observed bounds, elicited judgements, scientifically or operationally plausible cases, and deliberately extreme stress tests. A stress-test failure can reveal vulnerability without establishing the failure’s probability.

Preserve dependencies and feasibility. Joint variations should describe possible or explicitly hypothetical conditions, not arbitrary combinations of incompatible endpoints. Changing a binding legal, safety, consent, or security condition is not an ordinary parameter perturbation. Its meaning, applicability and current force require their own competent result. If the question is whether its protection warrants its measure, threshold or burden, use the bounded C.11.DUA §4.3 appraisal through PSD.9 §4.4. Return the substantive recommendation and actual amendment authority/window separately; until a revision applies, test present alternatives under the binding condition.

If a needed variation cannot be bounded, retain that coverage gap. “Across all plausible futures” is stronger than “across the three stated futures” and needs stronger support.