I think one of the problems people are having is that mitigate means "lessen the impact of" not "completely eliminate" a problem. So saying: X mitigates Y.

I think one of the problems people are having is that mitigate means "lessen the impact of" not "completely eliminate" a problem. So saying: X mitigates Y. Y occurred after X to the effect of $N. is largely unhelpful, unless you provide a supporting statement of: Prior to X, Y occurred to the affect of $M. Now if M <= N, X is a complete failure. If M > N it is some sort of success, (adjusting for the costs of X is assumed here). Now, there is valid discussion about the how much M needs to be greater than N to make X worth it, but, this sort of comparison is needed to properly discuss X.