Risk taxonomy: Difference between revisions

Risk taxonomy (view source)

151 bytes added , 10 December 2018

no edit summary

83,013

edits

@@ Line 3: / Line 3: @@
 This exercise can occupy as little — a breakout session on an away-day — or as much — the permanent task of a dedicated division in the department — of your firm's intellectual capacity as you have going spare: organisations that run to the bureaucratic<ref>You know who you are.</ref> may become so swooned by this notion that they can find little time to do anything else. For how can one asses the risks of a transaction if one doesn't know from which family of what genus in what species it hails?
-{{JC}} has two particular reservations about risk taxonomies.
+===The problem with risk taxonomies===
+{{JC}} has ''two'' reservations about risk taxonomies:
-The first is that any taxonomy, like a map, can only document the territory you ''know''. This is of a piece with the common lawyer’s usual mode of reasoning, the doctrine of precedent, whose organising principle is to move ''forward'' by exclusive reference to what lies ''behind''.
+====The false comfort blanket====
+Any [[taxonomy]], like a map, can only document the territory you ''know'', have raked over, surveyed and measured. ''Stables from which the horse has bolted'', so to say. This is of a piece with the common lawyer’s usual mode of reasoning, the [[doctrine of precedent]], whose organising principle is to move ''forward'' by exclusive reference to what lies ''behind''.
 {{seealso}}