Telling a real test from a case already made
If no outcome of the measurement would have led to a different ask, you were shown a case that was already made.
The fourth question, and the one that did not make the three despite costing nothing to ask. It is here rather than earlier because it is confrontational, and a question you will not actually ask is worse than useless — it displaces one you would.
The question has an exact form, and the exactness is what makes it answerable: what result would have led you to recommend against this? Not whether they are confident. What outcome, specifically, would have produced a different sentence at the bottom of the page.
Three things can come back. A number, which is the good answer and ends the conversation. Silence, which is its own answer. Or a reframing — that the project was always going ahead and the measurement was to guide the rollout — which is sometimes entirely legitimate and is a different document than the one you were handed.
Why this is worth the friction
Because a measurement built to support a decision already made will be, at some point, a measurement that somebody is rated on. A measure that becomes a target ceases to measure what it measuredGoodhart, 1975unverified, and once that happens the number stops being an instrument and becomes a target. The more an indicator is used to decide, the more it is worth gamingCampbell, 1979unverified.
How to ask it without an accusation. Put it in the future and in the plural: what would we want to see before we stopped this? Same question, no implication that anybody has done anything wrong, and it produces the threshold you actually wanted. Asking it before the measurement rather than after is better still, and is entirely within your gift.