One‑pager for TAP pre‑brief (draft content)

Why we’re here

• Move from qualitative risk ratings to decision‑useful numbers (with uncertainty), while preserving TAP independence.
• Keep what works from Report A; add calibration, weighting and traceability.

What stays the same

• Same ecological assets and flow–ecology linkages used in Report A.
• Same modelled scenarios for comparability, with an added “hydrologic‑regime” lens (historical sequences).
• Same precautionary stance.

What changes (light lift, high payoff)

• Use a Cooke‑style re‑elicitation: seed questions → individual judgements → statistical calibration → performance‑based weights → pooled distributions.
• Convert the TAP’s likelihood×consequence ratings into probabilistic statements against a small set of hydrologic/salinity metrics (e.g., duration above bank, rate‑of‑fall, estuarine salinity bands).
• Bring in “states, rates, traits” thinking so we don’t over‑fit to static endpoints.

Why now

• Report A already flagged low confidence, modelling constraints and high dispersion in scores (Appendix C). Using calibration and regime context turns that into a strength rather than a blocker.

What we’re asking of you

• One short calibration session (seed items), then one elicitation session focused on answerable questions for 2025–26.
• Help identify: (i) quick modelling adds that unlock better questions; (ii) “no‑regrets” safeguards; (iii) options to test in subsequent rounds.

What you get

• A pooled, Cooke‑weighted risk metric per asset (with your individual weights preserved for later rounds), plus transparent links to assumptions.
• A tighter bridge from your assessment to the Minister’s plan settings (ESY framing, safeguard triggers, staged learning).

Ground rules

• Independence assured; dissent preserved; weights are about statistical performance, not status.
• We keep score of ignorance as well as uncertainty (yes, squizzles welcome).