That method shows us exactly what behaviour will be first to be incentified to be changed, and you can start reasoning from that. People don't change behaviour because of eloquent narrative about incentives meant to change their behaviour, they change behaviour because of actual stimuli acting on their existing behaviour.

That same method could have warned us about the disaster that was HF20. I feel it quite worrying, especially after our HF20 that anyone still could consider real-data simulations "useless". They aren't just usefull, they are essential to preventing what is perfectly predictable.