[RcouF1uZ4gsC]

I don't buy the title.

This is not just a normal, routine presentation. This is an all hands on deck emergency and discussion. And NASA isn't just a bunch of MBA's, but rather people who have spent their entire careers immersed in this kind of stuff.

No matter what is one the slide, I expect that the audience asks detailed questions. Even if the slide has just a big thumbs up emoji, I suspect you would still get a lot of really hard questions.

Think about presentations on programming, where someone in the audience points out that the example code on the slide is incorrect/won't compile/undefined behavior

I would expect a bunch of geeks (which I think would be there at NASA) to scrutinize the slide and try to find any flaw in the logic. Especially when the lives of people they deeply care about are on the line.

If they are so cavalier about human life that they just skip the details of the slide while making literal life and death decisions, it speaks of a very deep culture rot that goes far beyond PowerPoint.

[conductr]

> I don't buy the title.

IDK. I too like to think the discourse and Q&A would have signaled differently than the slide. But, this is also 2003 and people generally had not gotten great at communicating via powerpoint yet. It's still bad now, it was horrible then. A unformatted list of bullet points was obviously still an acceptable slide format which tells me a good deal of how much slide skillz these folks utilized.

So, I do believe the slide title. I feel like it could have just as easily been discussed prior to the slide, it was agreed the test was acceptable or risk was low, and so the title was just trying to indicate that "it's been pre-agreed there is no problem here" then outlines some of the concerns which were considered.