Rewriting the treaty line by line would invite the analyst's preferences, hindsight, and implicit biases into period terminology and bargaining. Keeping to broad ratios, ceilings, and incentives tests policy choices without claiming to know exactly what every 1930 delegation would accept. This is a useful methodological warning: a plausible counterfactual should constrain the analyst as well as the historical actors.
Notable Point · 28:28-29:38
Limiting hindsight in counterfactual treaty design
Keeping the alternate treaty at the level of broad rules limits the analyst's temptation to rewrite every clause with hindsight.