How should epistemic uncertainty in modelling water resources management problems shape evaluations of their operations?

In previous work, we have found that water supply companies are typically hesitant to use reservoir operation tools to inform their release decisions. We believe that this is, in part, due to a lack of faith in the fidelity of the optimization exercise with regards to its ability to represent the real world. In an attempt to quantify this, recent literature has studied the impact on performance from uncertainty arising in: forcing (e.g. reservoir inflows), parameters (e.g. parameters for the estimation of evaporation rate) and objectives (e.g. worst first percentile or worst case). We suggest that there is also epistemic uncertainty in the choices made during model creation, for example in the formulation of an evaporation model or aggregating regional storages. We create `rival framings' (a methodology originally developed to demonstrate the impact of uncertainty arising from alternate objective formulations), each with different modelling choices, and determine their performance impacts. We identify the Pareto approximate set of policies for several candidate formulations and then make them compete with one another in a large ensemble re-evaluation in each other's modelled spaces. This enables us to distinguish the impacts of different structural changes in the model used to evaluate system performance in an effort to generalize the validity of the optimized performance expectations.