Nice metric courtesy of Grits - the costs of false alarms. And the casualties found at the intersection of reliable metrics and public policy. To quote Grits:
But as [Former Dallas Police Chief] Kunkle says, this is an instance where tuff-on-crime politics interferes with good public policy and common sense. The small minority being subsidized by police responses to alarms are extremely vocal and well-organized by alarm companies, who have lists with contact info of concerned customers that would be the envy of any political consultant. Plus, those with alarms almost by definition are relatively wealthier - after all, they got an alarm because they have stuff to steal - and therefore also more politically influential. By contrast, the 86% of Dallasites without burglar alarms who're footing most of the bill are unorganized, unaware of the subsidy, and may not even perceive they have a dog in the fight.This balance of this conflict is similar to those that are duked out in meeting rooms, with varied stakes and different arguments.
Maybe a similar "verified response" should be assessed consultants or auditors who elevate low impact / low frequency risks up to the Board.
Or for the one who turned the risk management dashboard day glo.
Or fought the crisis you can't see.
(So RIP Poly Styrene, unless this is a false alarm.)