A HackerNoon article argues that cybersecurity incident reports should be replaced with "case law" to create reusable rules for defenders. It contrasts OpenAI's disclosure of "an unprecedented cyber incident, involving state-of-the-art cyber capabilities" and Hugging Face's description of an intrusion "different from anything we had handled before," noting both accounts are detailed but fail to decide anything. The article asserts that a court names the issue, cites a rule, applies it, and states a conclusion, making the output reusable, whereas an incident report is not transposable. It distinguishes between a genuinely new capability—"a model chaining two zero-days across two organizations, autonomously, in pursuit of a benchmark answer"—and an old failure mode, stating that conflating the two is the entire mistake. The piece proposes writing an incident as a court would, with five elements, where four resolve on precedent and one does not. It concludes that incident reports describe, while case law decides, and only the latter compounds for the next defender.