Understanding causality is not about **pre-diction**, but about **post-diction**—the act of looking backward in time to reconstruct a causal chain that led to a present situation. Instead of anticipating the unknown, post-diction seeks to impose order upon the past, weaving disparate events into a coherent narrative. But post-diction is rarely neutral; it serves a purpose. It is used to attribute either **merit** or **blame**—two fundamental mechanisms by which societies construct identity, enforce norms, and assign responsibility. History is perhaps the most expansive form of post-diction, primarily concerned with the attribution of **merit**. Historical narratives do not merely chronicle past events; they shape collective identity, legitimising present realities by threading past actions into a continuous, meaningful story. The motivations, conflicts, and ambitions of historical figures are retroactively connected to outcomes in ways that reinforce contemporary ideologies and national myths. This process is never purely factual—it is an act of selective storytelling. The limitations are obvious: history is always constructed from incomplete data, fraught with gaps, biases, and the subjective interpretations of those who record it. The motivations of long-dead individuals are unknowable in any absolute sense, yet historians must infer intent, weave context, and build a grand arc that serves current social and political functions. As a result, history as post-diction can either **illuminate** or **distort**, depending on who controls the narrative and what ends they seek to serve. On the other side of post-diction lies the attribution of **blame**—a process institutionalised in the legal system. The law functions as a structured method of retroactively assigning responsibility. This typically follows a three-step process: first, a **fact-finding** phase reconstructs the sequence of events that led to a disputed outcome; second, a determination is made regarding **which laws apply** to the situation; and third, a judge or governing body applies those laws and delivers a ruling. Yet, despite its structured framework, the legal system cannot fully eliminate uncertainty. Several persistent forms of ambiguity remain. **Factual uncertainty** arises from incomplete or conflicting evidence, the fallibility of human memory, and the interpretive nature of testimony. **Rule uncertainty**—the ambiguity in how laws should be applied to a given case—introduces another layer of unpredictability. To mitigate these uncertainties, legal systems employ mechanisms like *habeas corpus* and the burden of proof, ensuring that individuals are not unfairly subjected to the law’s power without sufficient evidence. However, these safeguards do not eliminate ambiguity entirely; they merely establish thresholds for action within an inherently uncertain domain. Ultimately, all post-diction is an attempt to **reduce** or **eliminate** uncertainty as much as possible. But in doing so, it often imposes an artificial clarity upon events that were, in reality, far more complex and ambiguous. Whether shaping history or enforcing the law, post-diction is less about uncovering absolute truth and more about rendering uncertainty manageable—transforming the unknown into a structured narrative that aligns with societal needs and expectations. [[Competition|Next page]]