When you avoid accountablilty, you pervert the risk/benefit. So people get incentivized to roll the dice on low-risk/high severity events because most of the time, it will come out in their favor and they can continue cashing their checks. But in the off-times when it doesn't, people just shake their heads and say "Who could've known!?" when in reality, there were people sounding the alarm the entire time. The outcome you're advocating hiding the risk into the shadows where nobody talks about it. I'm advocating a structure that isn't risk-adverse necessarily, but at least lays it all out for transparent risk-informed decision making.

You're talking to someone who spent years working in the aerospace industry. I'm not sure, but it seems like you have some hypothetical idea of what reality is, but it doesn't align with my actual experience. Not to sound disrespectful, but it sounds like one of us actually has experience and the other is going off a narrative they've created in their head.

I do hear people often talk about the "incompetent patsy" excuse. But I'm curious, where do you think that stops being relevant? Do you not hold medical doctors liable for decisions because a patient will just find another "incompetent patsy" to prescribe them whatever they want? Do you not expect civil engineers to be responsible for a structural design of a bridge because a company will find an "incompetent patsy" to sign off on a sub-standard design that is better for profit margins? We're used to holding all kinds of professionals liable, but there seems to be a cultural shift in the last 40-50 years where we've rationalized bad behavior as the norm rather than holding people accountable.