On the contrary the gravity of the outcome should absolutely influence the weighting of the evidence and underlying assumptions.
Things like aero-engine progress, carrier construction count, nuclear submarine construction count, are strategically important in a manner that is greater than say, the production rate difference of a AFV or an assault rifle with greater implications for underlying technological capabilities and significance in a conflict, which should absolutely mandate greater caution around the inputs put in.
There is a difference between past nuclear submarine construction and that for future carrier construction and future aero-engines.
We already have observed data (outcomes) on nuclear submarine construction, and this is being used to analyse the past.
These conclusions should take precedence in importance.
In comparison, for future carrier construction and aero-engine progress, we don't have enough hard data points or outcomes yet. So the gravity/implications of the outcomes should take precedence on an analysis.


