---
id: "question-nightmare-disagreement"
type: "open-question"
source_timestamps: ["§ Let's Talk About Nightmares", "¶4"]
source_url: "https://hbr.org/2026/05/what-are-your-companys-ai-nightmares"
source_title: "What Are Your Company's AI Nightmares?"
tags: ["conflict-resolution", "edge-cases"]
related: ["claim-nightmares-create-alignment"]
resolutionPath: "Case studies detailing how ENC teams negotiate and prioritize conflicting risk assessments between departments."
sources: ["governance"]
sourceVaultSlug: "hbr-seg-governance"
originDay: 7
articleStem: "hbr-cl-82-ai-nightmares"
sourceUrl: "https://hbr.org/2026/05/what-are-your-companys-ai-nightmares"
sourceTitle: "What Are Your Company’s AI Nightmares?"
---
# How are disagreements over what constitutes a 'nightmare' resolved?

**Open question:** The author claims nightmares create alignment because everyone agrees on what a disaster is ([[claim-nightmares-create-alignment]]). But the text does not address **edge cases where cross-functional teams disagree on the severity of an outcome** — e.g., marketing views hyper-personalized targeting as a *success* while legal views it as a *privacy nightmare*.

**Why it matters:** Nightmare-framing *focuses* disputes on specific scenarios but does not automatically dissolve them; without a resolution mechanism the alignment claim is overstated for the contentious middle band of cases.

**Resolution path:** Case studies detailing how [[concept-enc-teams]] negotiate and prioritize conflicting risk assessments between departments — plausibly requiring structured escalation and explicit decision-rights frameworks.

**Enrichment note:** This is the sharpest live counter-perspective to the source: "nightmares may not automatically yield consensus." Values may in fact be needed here to *prioritize* competing nightmares — connecting back to [[contrarian-values-vs-nightmares]].