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.