It also seems like an example of how theorizing in advance isn't just about studying what an alliance will do but actually potentially substantively interacts with the thought of the alliance. E.g., if you ask, "But does Article 5 apply if a nuclear accident in a non-member state that is the result of hostile action then drifts into a member state's territory?" or "Does Article 5 apply if a river that flows from a non-member state to a member state has its course changed or its waterflow restricted by a new dam in a non-member state" etc. then the very asking of that question may well spur the alliance to interpret its commitments in ways that were never contemplated before.