If someone says, “I think your AI safety scheme is horribly flawed because X will go wrong,” and you reply “Nah, X will be fine because of Y and Z”, then good practice calls for highlighting that Y and Z are important propositions. Y and Z may need to be debated in their own right, especially if a lot of people consider Y and Z to be nonobvious or probably false. Contrast emphemeral premises. Needs to be paired with understanding of the Multiple-Stage Fallacy so that listing load-bearing premises doesn’t make the proposition look less probable - $$\neg X$$ will have load-bearing premises too.