On the final paragraph, I donāt strongly disagree, but:
I think to me ādrastically curtailā more naturally means āreduces to much less than 50%ā (though that may be biased by me having also heard Ordās operationalisation for the same term).
At first glance, I feel averse to introducing a new term for something like āreduces by 5-90%ā
I think ānon-existential trajectory changeā, or just ātrajectory changeā, maybe does an ok job for what you want to say
Technically those things would also cover 0.0001% losses or the like. But it seems like you could just say ātrajectory changeā and then also talk about roughly how much loss you mean?
It seems like if we come up with a new term for the 5-90% bucket, we would also want a new term for other buckets?
I agree with everything but your final paragraph.
On the final paragraph, I donāt strongly disagree, but:
I think to me ādrastically curtailā more naturally means āreduces to much less than 50%ā (though that may be biased by me having also heard Ordās operationalisation for the same term).
At first glance, I feel averse to introducing a new term for something like āreduces by 5-90%ā
I think ānon-existential trajectory changeā, or just ātrajectory changeā, maybe does an ok job for what you want to say
Technically those things would also cover 0.0001% losses or the like. But it seems like you could just say ātrajectory changeā and then also talk about roughly how much loss you mean?
It seems like if we come up with a new term for the 5-90% bucket, we would also want a new term for other buckets?