In offering professional services, it is essential for actuaries (as financial scientists) to follow evidence. We must interpret all the evidence available as experts (like Gil Grissom or Nikki Alexander) as, otherwise, we are contributing very little indeed.
Interpretation is subjective, not objective. There is nothing wrong with subjectivity, so long as the actuary retains independence, rather than merely subscribing to groupthink. One must follow all of the evidence available and provide fully cogent explanations.
The different stakeholders need to be enabled to understand the potential consequences so that appropriate plans can be made. To my mind, this is most likely to be achieved by showing a range of potential outcomes rather than just one scalar result.