Foresight without false precision.
Describing what may happen next is valuable. Attaching a number to it that the evidence cannot support is not.
The precision trap
A percentage feels rigorous and travels well. It also detaches from its basis immediately: repeated in a briefing, it becomes a fact about the world rather than an output of assumptions that may already be obsolete.
What to state instead
State the possible development, the assumptions it depends on, and the indicators that would support or undermine it. That form is directly actionable: it tells a team what to watch, which a probability does not.
Foresight that can be wrong usefully
When a development does not occur, an assumption-based description shows which assumption failed. A probability only shows that an unlikely thing happened, which teaches no one anything.
See SKALV with your own operational scenario.
Bring a real scenario — the sources you follow, the functions you cannot lose — and we will show where SKALV fits and where it does not.