This chapter critically examines the limitations of quantitative risk assessment tools, such as probability matrices and severity indicators, which dominate contemporary practice. Arguing that probability-based models are ill-suited to anticipating low-frequency, high-impact events (e.g., pandemics, geopolitical crises), the authors highlight how such tools often dismiss “black swan” risks until they materialize. Severity assessments, meanwhile, tend to reduce multidimensional consequences to financial metrics, overlooking human, reputational, and ecological impacts. The chapter further warns against the performative risks of indicators, which can prioritize compliance over genuine resilience. As an alternative, it proposes replacing probability with cumulative impact analysis, grounded in cascading scenario construction. By mapping “parent” risks and their derivative consequences, organizations can assess total potential impact relative to their risk appetite, shifting from illusory precision to strategic plausibility.