Measuring uncertainty instead of hiding it

Uncertainty is not the problem. Pretending it isn’t there is.

At board tables and in senior leadership meetings, the pressure to present clean numbers and decisive plans is intense. Charts show single figures, not ranges. Forecasts imply precision that does not exist. Risk summaries flatten complex distributions into colour-coded boxes.

Over time, everyone in the room learns that the real story lives in the caveats that never quite make it onto the slide. The formal artefacts say one thing; the quiet side conversations say another. This gap is where trust slowly erodes.

Measuring uncertainty explicitly—and building it into your materials—is not an admission of weakness. Done well, it is one of the strongest signals of seriousness a leadership team can send.

How hidden uncertainty corrodes trust

When uncertainty is downplayed or disguised, several predictable problems appear inside organisations:

1. False precision in the numbers

Forecasts and models often present single-point estimates: revenue will be X, losses will be Y, adoption will be Z. Internally, everyone knows these are best guesses. Externally, they are read as commitments.

When reality diverges, the story must be patched retroactively. The question shifts from “What did we learn?” to “How do we explain this?”

2. Quiet “shadow models”

When the official numbers are understood to be politically constrained, people create their own mental or spreadsheet-based models. These shadow models:

• Are often more conservative or more pessimistic.
• Drive behaviour more than the official figures.
• Are rarely surfaced or aligned across the leadership team.

The organisation ends up executing against a set of private scenarios that were never openly discussed.

3. Defensive communication with boards and regulators

Once a pattern of over-confident communication is established, each new interaction becomes a negotiation about credibility. Time that could be spent on structural questions is instead spent negotiating the meaning of last quarter’s “committed” numbers.

What it looks like to measure uncertainty honestly

Measuring uncertainty does not require exotic statistics. It requires discipline, transparency, and the willingness to embed ranges and caveats into the same materials that currently show single numbers.

1. Ranges instead of point estimates

Wherever possible, replace single figures with thoughtfully constructed ranges, for example:

• Revenue: “Most likely range: 210–245; outer risk range: 190–260.”
• Adoption: “We expect 18–24% within 12 months, with upside to ~30% if conditions A and B hold.”

The ranges should be grounded in historical data, structural analysis, or explicit scenarios—not intuition alone.

2. Confidence levels and traceable assumptions

For key claims, attach:

• A confidence level (for example, “high”, “medium”, “exploratory”).
• A pointer to the inputs (data sources, methods, expert judgement).
• A short list of conditions under which the claim would likely fail.

This does not clutter the main narrative when done carefully, but it gives boards and regulators a map of where the analysis is strongest and where it rests on thinner ice.

3. Scenario bands instead of single futures

Rather than presenting one forecast with a “best case / worst case” appendix, construct a small set of coherent scenario bands. For each band, describe:

• The core narrative of how the world would need to evolve.
• Key indicators that this scenario is materialising.
• Implications for capital, staffing, and risk appetite.

The goal is not to predict the future precisely, but to demonstrate that leadership has thought seriously about how different futures would be handled.

Embedding uncertainty into governance and communication

Measuring uncertainty well is only half the work. The other half is ensuring that your governance structures and communication practices actually use that information.

1. Board materials that make room for uncertainty

Many board packs are structured in a way that punishes nuance. To change this, consider:

• Adding a short “uncertainty profile” section to key papers, describing where the numbers are most and least robust.
• Presenting ranges and scenarios in the main body, not as an appendix.
• Explicitly inviting the board to challenge assumptions rather than the existence of uncertainty itself.

2. Internal dashboards that show stability and fragility

Dashboards often track only the central figure. To integrate uncertainty:

• Display bands or cones around critical metrics where appropriate.
• Track indicators designed to signal when the underlying assumptions may be failing.
• Include short, plain-language commentary about what has become more or less certain since the last reporting period.

3. Regulatory and investor dialogue grounded in ranges

Regulators and sophisticated investors are accustomed to uncertainty. What concerns them is when leadership seems unwilling or unable to talk about it. Over time, consistently grounding external dialogue in structured ranges and scenarios can materially raise trust.

Cultural signals that support this way of working

Measuring uncertainty is ultimately a cultural choice. A few signals tend to distinguish organisations that handle it well:

• Leaders model “I don’t know yet”. Senior voices are willing to say what remains unknown and what is being monitored.
• Teams are rewarded for surfacing doubt early. Raising uncomfortable questions is treated as a contribution, not as disloyalty.
• Forecast misses lead to learning, not just blame. The focus is on improving assumptions, not rewriting history.
• Shadow models are brought to the table. People are invited to share their private views so they can be examined together.

Over time, these habits create an environment where uncertainty is mapped, monitored, and communicated—not buried.

Working with Verisonde

Verisonde works with boards and leadership teams to rebuild how uncertainty is handled across forecasting, risk, and strategic communication. That often includes:

• Redesigning board and executive materials to surface uncertainty clearly.
• Developing scenario bands and indicator sets tailored to your context.
• Running workshops on narrative hygiene and “traceable claims”.

If you are operating in an environment where uncertainty is high and the appetite for surprises is low, we would be glad to explore how this discipline could support you.