You identify a clear flaw in our risk assessment model, increasingly complex and higher risks, with no funding or able methods for accurate assessment.

The problem is bigger than that, though. We have this same flaw all over the place, increasing risks that are no one's job to look into. We are taking them to keep increasing our economic output with ever less human effort (productivity), so the economy can continually grow at "stable" rates.

When you ask the question, what would make a smooth running system, that always worked before, certain to fail completely, you find a 1-1 correlation with our standard model of economic stability. Our economic model is to continually increase our wealth by taking ever greater risks in managing ever faster changing and complex systems for using more physical resources.

The simple physics of that should have told us long ago that the response times needed would be a problem! The only trouble is... physics can only refer to data, and has nothing to say about complex physical physical systems. You can't define them. What turns out to work to apply physical to physical systems, is that you can define ways to point to them. I think my methods work, at least competently, for doing just that, and drawing out quite useful results.

I have a nice general paper on the core theory to appear in Cosmos and History this month.