The training included a case study where a drug company was sued for side effects. The key piece of evidence? A company lawyer just happened to write in an email "maybe we got the dose wrong?".

The lawyer had zero medical training, zero access to any of the data and frankly was completely unqualified to make such a statement.

But this email was presented during the trial to the jury and the company lost the suit.

The point is - you won't get a chance to provide context for things written in emails. They will be taken at face value and framed in the worst possible light.

Seems like a pretty good policy to not make a permanent record of conjecture and half-baked theories that could come back to bite you later?