Actually, it doesn’t work like that in software and tech. And in large corps, there are specific teams and depts (e.g. risk assessment, compliance etc) that do this, but on a broader scale. In smaller and insulated teams, it’s non-existent.
Most teams are not setup to have any of those. e.g. I don’t have anyone doing bizdev at either of my studios. Why would I need that? Marketing is done by third-party teams who are hired to do that.
Thanks for making my point.
That section, hyperbole aside, is completely subjective and opinionated. Here, I will save you the click to make my point.
Nothing against Simon ofc, but since you used that example, here is what I see.
Operative terms: “we believe”, “de-risk this even further”.
Operative terms: “misinformation”, “we believe”, “regardless of the platform or business model”
Operative terms: “dismissive”, “industry shifts”, “successfully onboarding”
As a publisher, distributor and gamedev veteran, even though the AIP is from a publishing perspective, I don’t see an explanation of the “Risks & Challenges” to a software project. In fact, Simon inadvertently put some of that in the first half of the abstract section.
The point that I am making here is that adding a burdensome section such as this AIP, serves no tangible or reasonable purpose. It will just waste time, cause obfuscation of facts, introduce hyperbole and soothsaying, and detract from the core of the AIP; which is to come up with a compelling AIP that’s worthy of a grant. Not to mention that with our current voting system such as it is, coupled with that whole “Apes don’t read” gag, and you end up an inconsequential and onerous section.
That said, even as an optional section (there are a few such sections in the current AIP draft template), most will just skip it. I can absolutely guarantee it. I know I most certainly will. 
Take a look at any number of AIPs that have gone through here, and it would be immediately obvious that a large number of them wouldn’t be able to provide responsive answers to such a section. At least not without making stuff up.
In fact, most AIPs already inadvertently mention the risks and challenges. For example, everyone already knows that my voting reform AIP-318 is definitely going to fail. I don’t have a risks & challenges section, but there are various parts (regarding whales, power etc) that clearly show the risks & challenges of getting it passed.
I think that most people are already aware of the risks & challenges of doing anything. The question is whether or not they want to share something that is likely to raise questions about their AIP and it’s success or fail ratio. There are entire studies about speaking and writing proposals, grants etc. And most of them specifically warn about not raising Red flags yourself because the chances are slim to none that most will even see what you see - or chose to hide or reveal. Writing a proposal, investment deck, resume etc. all have the same principle about what to say, when, and how.
Have you seen my game AIP-316? Do you know the single point of failure in that project and which I would never put in a risks & challenges section? That if I get run over by a bus, die etc. that the project ends. Every single game (of which there are 3, incl the in-progress Netflix one) in dev needs me from start to finish. Once finished, the risk is alleviated. In comparison to Simon’s AIP, which is publisher and gaming (sort of) related, the other risks are that the pre-existing Web2 gamers get so upset at me, that they rebel (by not buying the game, trashing it etc.) because I added Web3 elements to the re-release of the game, the gaming media trashes it for the same reason etc. There are lots of issues that can make the project fail and which have nothing to do with the use of $APE and for which the grant was given. You know why such things have no place in a risks & challenges section of most projects? Because Force Majeure is totally a thing - and it’s implicit.
To be clear. I am NOT against accountability (don’t even get me started on that. lol) or transparency. My point is that modifying the AIP draft template to include a largely inconsequential , questionable and burdensome barrier isn’t beneficial to anyone. Aside from the fact that, as a voting based grant system, most won’t even care either way because they tend to just vote without even understanding, let alone reading, the AIP. So, there’s that. heh.
Great discussion to have though. Definitely.