2. Home
  3. ARCHIVE
  4. 2026
  5. VOL 48, NO 2 (2026)
  6. pp. 87-102

High-Impact Low-Probability Risks and the Limits of Anticipation: From Known Knowns to Zero-Precedent Uncertainty

F. Korobeynikov *, PhD, S. Matvieiev **, PhD,
V. Mokhor ***, DrSc, Prof., Corresponding Member NAS of Ukraine, 
G.E. Pukhov Institute for Modelling in Energy Engineering of the NAS of Ukraine 
15 Oleha Mudraka Street, Kyiv, 03164, Ukraine
E-mail: This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it., * ORCID: https://orcid.org/0009-0003-8127-4379;
This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it., ** ORCID: https://orcid.org/0009-0002-4779-9350;
This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it., *** ORCID: https://orcid.org/0000-0001-5419-9332

Èlektron. model. 2026, 48(2):87-105

ABSTRACT

This article develops an epistemological taxonomy of High-Impact, Low-Probability (HILP) risks grounded in the Rumsfeld matrix, identifying structural limits in the logic of prediction that underpins contemporary approaches to safety and risk management. While conventional frameworks assume that historical experience provides a meaningful basis for probabilistic modelling, Zero-precedent HILP risks — defined as risks lacking both historical instantiation and established conceptual representation — challenge this assumption. In such cases, not only are data unavailable, but the event-space required for probability-based reasoning is itself undefined.

By analysing the epistemic architecture of HILP risks, the study differentiates four regimes of uncertainty and introduces two subclasses within the zero-precedent domain: Atemporal emergent risks, which are not linked to evolutionary trajectories of socio-technical systems, and Proto-singular risks, which arise endogenously from processes of systemic evolution and increasing complexity. This differentiation demonstrates that radical uncertainty is structurally heterogeneous and that distinct governance strategies are required across regimes.

The taxonomy carries direct implications for risk governance. It provides a structured basis for aligning preparedness strategies with the nature of the uncertainty involved, shifting emphasis from scenario completeness and predictive refinement towards strengthening adaptive potential, enabling transmorphance — understood as systemic reconfiguration without loss of functional identity — and cultivating self-organising response capacities. In this way, the paper reframes HILP analysis from quantitative extremity to epistemic architecture, extending safety science beyond prediction-centred risk management under conditions of radical uncertainty.

Full text: PDF

KEYWORDS

safety governance, high-impact low-probability (HILP) risks, risk governance, zero-precedent risks, adaptive security, safety management, transmorphance.

REFERENCES

  1. Pescaroli, G., McMillan, L., Gordon, M., Aydin, N.Y., Comes, T., Maraschini, M., Oliveira Palmas, J., Torresan, S., Trump, B., Pelling, M., & Linkov, I. (2025). Definitions and taxo­nomy for high impact low probability (HILP) and outlier events. International Journal of Disaster Risk Reduction, 105504. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijdrr.2025.105504
  2. Buldyrev, S.V., Parshani, R., Paul, G., Stanley, H.E., & Havlin, S. (2010). Catastrophic cascade of failures in interdependent networks. Nature, 464(7291), 1025- https://doi.org/10.1038/nature08932
  3. Duan, D., Lv, C., Si, S., Wang, Z., Li, D., Gao, J., Havlin, S., Stanley, H.E., &Boccaletti, S. (2019). Universal behavior of cascading failures in interdependent networks. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 116(45), 22452- https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1904421116
  4. Perrow, C. (1999). Normal Accidents: Living with High Risk Technologies - Updated Edition (REV-Revised). Princeton University Press. https://doi.org/10.1515/9781400828494
  5. Sperstad, I.B., Kjølle, G.H., & Gjerde, O. (2020). A comprehensive framework for vulnerability analysis of extraordinary events in power systems. Reliability Engineering & System Safety, 196, 106788. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ress.2019.106788
  6. Taleb, N.N. (2010). The black swan: The impact of the highly improbable (2nd ed.). Random House.ISBN 978–1400063512
  7. Aven, T. (2013). On the meaning of a black swan in a risk context. Safety Science, 57, 44- https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ssci.2013.01.016
  8. Mendonça, S., Pina e Cunha, M., Kaivo-oja, J., & Ruff, F. (2004). Wild cards, weak signals and organisational improvisation. Futures, 36(2), 201- https://doi.org/10.1016/S0016-3287(03)00148-4
  9. Sytnik, V M. (2024). Expanding foresight methodology to better understand the unknown future and identify hard-to-predict events. European Journal of Futures Research, 12, 20. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40309-024-00244-2
  10. Sornette, D. (2009). Dragon-kings, black swans and the prediction of crises. International Journal of Terraspace Science and Engineering, 2(1), 1- https://arxiv.org/abs/0907.4290
  11. Glette-Iversen, I., & Aven, T. (2021). On the meaning of and relationship between dragon-kings, black swans and related concepts. Reliability Engineering & System Safety, 211, 107625. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ress.2021.107625
  12. Ramasesh, R.V., & Browning, T.R. (2014). A conceptual framework for tackling knowable unknown unknowns in project management. Journal of Operations Management, 32(4), 190- https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jom.2014.03.003
  13. Diebold, F.X., Doherty, N.A., & Herring, R.J. (2010). The known, the unknown, and the unknowable in financial risk management: Measurement and theory advancing practice. Princeton University Press.
  14. Carrington, R.C. (1859). Description of a singular appearance seen in the sun on September 1, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 20, 13-15.
  15. Tsurutani, B.T., Gonzalez, W.D., Lakhina, G.S., & Alex, S. (2003). The extreme magnetic storm of 1-2 September 1859. Journal of Geophysical Research: Space Physics, 108(A7), 1268. https://doi.org/10.1029/2002JA009504
  16. Polanyi, M. (1958). Personal knowledge: Towards a post-critical philosophy. University of Chicago Press.
  17. Hadjimichael, D., Ribeiro, R., &Tsoukas, H. (2024). How Does Embodiment Enable the Acquisition of Tacit Knowledge in Organizations? From Polanyi to Merleau-Ponty. Orga­nization Studies, 45(4), 545-570. https://doi.org/10.1177/01708406241228374
  18. Fackler, M. (2011, April 20). Tsunami warnings, written in stone. The New York Times. https://www.nytimes.com/2011/04/21/world/asia/21stones.html (accessed 23 February 2026).
  19. United Nations Office for Disaster Risk Reduction (UNDRR). (2022). Words into Action guidelines: Using traditional and indigenous knowledges for disaster risk reduction (PDF). https://www.undrr.org/words-into-action/traditional-and-indigenous-knowledges-drr (accessed 23 February 2026).
  20. Korobeynikov, F., Mokhor, V. (2026). Adaptive security: strategic principles for complex socio-technical systems. Royal Society Open Science, 13(1): 251481. https://doi.org/1098/ rsos.251481
  21. Hollnagel, E., Woods, D.D., & Leveson, N. (Eds.). (2006). Resilience engineering: Concepts and precepts (1st ed.). CRC Press.https://doi.org/10.1201/9781315605685
  22. Walker, B., Holling, C.S., Carpenter, S.R., & Kinzig, A. (2004). Resilience, adaptability and transformability in social-ecological systems. Ecology and Society, 9(2), 5. https://doi.org/10.5751/ES-00650-090205
  23. Odum, E.P. (1969). The strategy of ecosystem development. Science, 164(3877), 262–270. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.164.3877.262
  24. Gunderson, L.H., & Holling, C.S. (Eds.). (2002). Panarchy: Understanding transformations in human and natural systems. Island Press.
  25. Nonaka, I. (1994). A dynamic theory of organizational knowledge creation. Organization Science, 5(1), 14- https://doi.org/10.1287/orsc.5.1.14
  26. Leonard, D., &Sensiper, S. (1998). The role of tacit knowledge in group innovation. California Management Review, 40(3), 112- https://doi.org/10.2307/41165946
  27. Hiwasaki, L., Luna, E., Syamsidik, & Shaw, R. (2014). Process for integrating local and indigenous knowledge with science for hydro-meteorological disaster risk reduction and climate change adaptation in coastal and small island communities. International Journal of Disaster Risk Reduction, 10, 196- https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijdrr.2014.07.007
  28. Mokhor, V., Korobeynikov, F. (2025). Transmorphance of socio-technical systems: A conceptual framework for adaptive security. International Science Journal of Management, Economics & Finance, 4(4), 71- https://doi.org/10.46299/j.isjmef.20250404.07
  29. Gorban, A.N., Tyukina, T.A., Smirnova, E.V., &Pokidysheva, L.I. (2016). Evolution of adaptation mechanisms: Adaptation energy, stress, and oscillating death. Journal of Theoretical Biology, 405, 127- https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jtbi.2015.12.017
  30. Folke, C., Carpenter, S.R., Walker, B., Scheffer, M., Chapin, T., &Rockström, J. (2010). Resilience thinking: Integrating resilience, adaptability and transformability. Ecology and Society, 15(4), 20. https://doi.org/10.5751/ES-03610-150420
  31. Bruneau, M., et al. (2003). A framework to quantitatively assess and enhance the seismic resilience of communities. Earthquake Spectra, 19(4), 733- https://doi.org/10.1193/1.1623497
  32. Helbing, D. (2013). Globally networked risks and how to respond. Nature, 497, 51- https://doi.org/10.1038/nature12047
  33. Scheffer, M., et al. (2009). Early-warning signals for critical transitions. Nature, 461, 53-59. https://doi.org/10.1038/nature08227