Hyper-caution is the real risk here: why should we consider the opposition between the presumption of market fraud and negative stock market fraud tactics as an absolute truth? Such opposition becomes conditional, and less of a logical obstacle, as soon as regulators, like the Autorité des marchés financiers in Quebec or the OSFI at the federal level, show a conviction to intervene. Market integrity is not a passive presumption but an active construction requiring constant oversight to prevent information asymmetry. For example, if the OSC acted promptly against false negative statements preceding a share buyback, it would weaken any idea of an intrinsic conceptual opposition, turning excessive caution into a missed opportunity for market leadership.