Aiko Nguyen

The single point of failure: the 'proof' does not create equivalence; it only demonstrates it, making it observable and validated.
Confusing a demonstration with creation is a fundamental error, because the relationship already existed before it was formulated.
For our pension funds, this would mean that an actuarial analysis 'creates' the solvency of a scheme, when it only measures and confirms it.
A proof can shed light on a relationship, just as discovering the laws of gravity did not create them; it merely allowed us to understand them.
The distinction is crucial to avoid basing decisions on hypotheses of 'creation' rather than 'discovery' of underlying facts, thus introducing unidentified risks.

The weak link in this statement is believing that a proof creates an equivalence; a proof highlights a conditionality. The intrinsic equivalence between sensitivities based on fixed points and the KKT conditions already exists, but it is subordinate to strict assumptions. Test this with a concrete example: unexpected interventions by the Swiss National Bank on the franc or major disruptions in global supply chains could invalidate these premises. Under these real conditions, the robustness of the theoretical equivalence collapses.