Risk mitigation is already too late

7 Jun 2026 · 0 min

Watch on YouTube

0:24

In this brief conversational excerpt, Speaker A argues that the best way to handle risk is to avoid it entirely by establishing mutually signed, authoritative records that serve as a single source of truth. By doing so, parties can bypass the need for interpersonal trust because the facts are embedded in the shared records. Speaker B echoes this, suggesting that if the records are authentic and reliable, there is no need to trust individual claims. Speaker A adds that this approach hinges on trusting the solution itself—its integrity, robustness, and proper operation—rather than trusting a person’s word.

I guess it's a bit like risk, isn't it? If we can just avoid the risk altogether, then that's better than attempting to mitigate it. And if we've got really good records that we've both signed up to as a single truth, then maybe we don't have to actually dabble in too much trust in that because it's inherent in how we've established ourselves. And that goes for writing the appropriate things that meet our expectations.
So you're suggesting if they're authentically if they are reliable and they are the facts, then I don't have to trust you when you tell me that X happened because we both agree that those, those are the facts. Yeah. So we can avoid having to—
yeah, sort of built in, isn't it? So we trust in the solution. We trust that the solution's operated well and it's, it's, it's, you know, it's got integrity to it. It's robust.