I'm confused how the outputs of the simulation can be considered as anything more than a reflection of the inputs. E.g. the findings include a description of ho

I'm confused how the outputs of the simulation can be considered as anything more than a reflection of the inputs. E.g. the findings include a description of how the public reacts, but that reaction was created by the simulators according to what they thought would happen. Then they they get to write a report saying that "the simulation showed X would happen", even though that's equivalent to "we thought X would happen, so we made it happen in the simulation". I guess there's value in setting up a situation where people actually consider what would happen and write down what they come up with. At least that can point out problems of the "obvious once you think about it" variety.