Nobody claimed we need 100% precision (or, more to the point, 100% certainty). But I would argue the level of our convictions should be proportional to the risk and level of certainty.

To the point being made, for most Americans the cost of updating your building envelope and fenestration is relatively high. Yet if we look at the accuracy of the data (compared to the medical device standard), it’s moderate accuracy. So we’re taking a high risk for something that we’re only moderately confident will work. That’s not a good tradeoff. There may be interventions that are lower risk that make for a more balanced approach.

“Move fast and break things” as a general philosophy is a risk-blind approach.