Replacing "might" with "can" obscures the distinction of possiblity and risk

This is a tracking issue for a discussion that arose from the "could"/"might" wording changes.

We initially proposed replacing "might" with "can" in several cases, but this has a different nuance that might not be desirable.

As @zygoloid puts it:

I prefer the nuance of "might" here, as we're talking about a thing that might unfortunately happen to an unsuspecting programmer, not something they can choose to do.

I wonder if that's a good barometer in general: using "can" to discuss risks seems like it has the wrong nuance.

We have multiple instances where "might" is used to call out a risk, not a possiblity.

Additional feedback on "might" => "can" changes:

This note to me sounds like it's directed at the programmer, not the implementation, and the change from "might" to "can" reverses that. So this is at least a change in nuance.

[Re "f might throw" vs "f can throw" or "it is possible for f to throw":] This is stating something as fact that is not known to be true -- we don't know whether it's possible for f to throw because we haven't seen its definition. (There's a surprisingly subtle difference between "X might Y" and "it is possible for X to Y" here.)

See the discussions in #4384 for context.

I expect that we will want to rephrase the offending phrases more widely than by just replacing one word with another.

Start with the discussion in #4384 and review this issue's examples of “might” versus “can.” Locate the wider set of affected wording in the draft, then use the resolved discussion to determine which phrases need rewording and what constitutes an accepted distinction between risk and possibility.