If deliberate serial offending by nurses occurs only on the order of once in several million nurse-years, are these recommendations a proportionate response, given "good faith" suspicion on the part of any clinician? What if a nurse is never seen harming a child, but that suspicion is still acted on, and the police are called? Exactly as happened in the case of #LucyLetby? The Inquiry acknowledges that such offending is "very rare", but - as happened in the Letby case - its proposed protocol contains no corresponding base-rate or false-positive safeguard. Instead, once a "good-faith" suspicion of deliberate harm is raised, immediate action is required and removal of the suspected clinician is envisaged as the likely first step. Thirlwall explicitly states that "there is no evidential requirement before action is taken." The danger is clear cut: when the prior probability is exceptionally low, ambiguous behaviour can be misinterpreted if a suspicion has been formed. And that assumption can become the lens through which every subsequent action by the nurse is seen to reinforce the suspicion. Yet what happened when the International Panel of Experts looked at the medical notes that had formed the basis of Letby's convictions after the trial? It found no medical evidence of deliberate harm in respect of any of the 17 babies reviewed. Rather, its assessment was that the outcomes observed were fully explained by natural disease, complications, prematurity, deficiencies or errors in medical care: not murder or attempted murder in a single case. If the Letby case has taught us anything, it is that in the complete absence of evidence, suspicion is a bridge too far.