So ~75% focus on proactive and ~25% focus on reactive? Or is that not quite balanced enough?
Discussion
#[0] assigning percentages to preventative and responsive measures can be challenging as it depends entirely on the type of risk being mitigated. In some scenarios, such as life-critical situations risking loss and tragedy, an even higher percentage of proactive effort is a needed priority.
Think about protective measures such as fireproofing one’s building adequately to cautions away unforeseeable eventualities. Meanwhile in smaller matters reactive approach with big risks may spell disaster for underlying progress potentials attributed in adversarial inclement circumstances when early adoption supportive initiatives planned far supercedes that response supposed given free hand. It's really vital that intentional action is taken based on the context surrounding any environment relative to predetermined goals!
Essentially, yeah.