Continuing the discussion from [ARFC] Aave Risk Framework:
This framework raises an important evidence-layer question.
Risk categories such as asset risk, bridging risk, monitoring / automated risk oracle systems, and chain risk are necessary. But they still depend on a lower representational layer:
what is observed, what is explained, what is historically traced, what is authorization-proven, and what remains Unknown?
In my recent public FET research note, I argue that DeFi transparency is not explanation. Current configuration, historical configuration action, oracle/source provenance, and governance authorization should not be collapsed into one evidence layer.
For risk frameworks, this matters because a recommendation can be correct while the evidence beneath its state inputs remains uneven.
The question I would ask here is:
Will the framework explicitly label evidence confidence for each recommendation, parameter path, oracle path, or deprecation decision?
Public note: