What should institutions do when evidence is incomplete but decisions cannot wait?

Waiting for perfect evidence is itself a decision. In public institutions, delay can preserve existing harms just as easily as premature action can create new ones.

A responsible response may require temporary measures, explicit assumptions, proportional safeguards, and a clear point at which the decision must be reviewed. The important distinction is between acting under uncertainty and pretending uncertainty is absent.

I keep returning to the question of what makes this kind of judgment legitimate: the quality of the evidence, the transparency of the process, the distribution of risk, or the institution’s willingness to revise its position.