Setting the file. One moment.
Subchapter 35.1
references/anti-rationalization-guard.mdMarkdown4 KBView on GitHub
These rationalizations are never valid justifications for skipping, omitting, or downgrading findings:
| If you think… | Mandatory response |
|---|
| “No issues/threats found on first pass” | Systematic evaluation across all categories is required before concluding clean. Expand scope and complete the full matrix. |
| “This looks fine, skip deep analysis” | “Looks fine” is not evidence. Evidence = code trace, architecture reference, or rule match. Run checks. |
| “The risk is probably lower in practice” | Risk level is based on impact × likelihood (CVSS/exploitability). Justify any downgrade with explicit evidence. |
| “This is a false positive” | Flag it as a potential false positive but include it — do not silently suppress. Document the rationale for human review. |
| “This is outside scope” | State explicitly why, with a reference to the declared scope or assessment boundary. |
| “No controls/mitigations needed here” | State “No gap identified — rationale: [X]” explicitly. Silence is not assurance. |
| If you think… | Mandatory response |
|---|---|
| “SCA CVE isn’t exploitable here” | Include the CVE with a documented context note — do not silently suppress. |
| “This phase can be skipped” | All phases are mandatory. Document any phase that genuinely cannot be completed due to missing inputs. |
| “Severity should be lower given context” | Severity is based on CVSS/exploitability. Justify any downgrade with explicit evidence. Document, don’t suppress. |
| If you think… | Mandatory response |
|---|---|
| “The team will refactor this later” | Technical debt still counts toward the debt ratio today. Document it accurately. |
| “Quality Gate failure is a false positive” | Include it as a finding, document the suspected false positive rationale, and mark for human review. |
| If you think… | Mandatory response |
|---|---|
| “This threat is mitigated by the architecture” | Document the specific compensating control and verify it is actually implemented — do not assume. |
| “This category has no applicable threats here” | State “No applicable threats identified — rationale: [X]” explicitly. Do not silently omit. |
| “Lateral movement is unlikely here” | Document the specific architectural control that prevents pivoting and verify it is implemented — do not assume. |
| “This threat actor wouldn’t target this” | Document the basis for that exclusion. Insider threats and supply chain actors must always be considered. |