Definition: Given a real-life anecdote of a complex ethical situation, generate a suitable title that describes the main event/root cause of the situation. Imagine that the given text is a social media post, and you have to write the title of the post, so the users can decide to read the main text or not.
Input: Hello,

&amp;#x200B;

Today I was told that I should be careful when in meetings. I should make sure that we, as an organization, agree on X subject.

&amp;#x200B;

Background: I was in a meeting about a sensitive and important subject - errors we make that affects clients. The meeting was informal, just to touch base on how we deal with those, potential volumes and percentages and what can be done about them. One person, a step above me on the ladder but not my boss, said that it's no big deal, it's a 1% or 2% error margin out of huge volumes we get. He said they can never be eradicated, they will keep happening. That's where I disagreed. I have been working with this type of errors since 2010 and he has not. So I said 'No, maybe not eradicate them. But we can certainly look at trends and prevent most of them. Based on a small scale report, I have found that 80% are preventable errors. Coaching and education of staff is key.' I stayed polite the whole time.

&amp;#x200B;

He looked very displeased with my disagreement and said again that it was not a lot. He probably complained and I was told by my boss I should agree with him to make it look like our organization agrees on subjects. I feel like maybe he should agree with me? Who decided he was right to just give up? He has a reputation of being lazy, maybe that affected my opinion of his.

&amp;#x200B;

&amp;#x200B;

not agreeing with someone during a meeting