That a decision needs to be made under uncertainty doesn’t relieve one from the necessity of making the decision. That implies estimating an uncertain state of

That a decision needs to be made under uncertainty doesn’t relieve one from the necessity of making the decision. That implies estimating an uncertain state of the world and drawing inferences from that, and whether those are framed as “criticism” is irrelevant. In situations where you could plausibly get more data, it’s usually OK to admonish people to just go and get some, because whatever the difficulty is doing that, judging the current degree of uncertaintly is probably even harder. In situations where you couldn’t, though (trade or state secrets), there’s nothing to do but to use what data you do have and point out your uncertainty carefully. (This is a very general argument because what you’ve said is a fully general counterargument to any criticism of anyone from anybody but an insider. As for this particular case, GP’s allegation of lacking ops knowledge seems to be on the charitable side to me: an uncharitable one, as stated elsethread, would be that they had one drive too many fail on them, whether due to incompetence or misfortune, and are forced to do an offline rebuild while choosing to lie about it. It’s the lie part that I’d have the greatest problem with, if it’s actually there.)