Here, the difficulty is created by the lack of information rather than the closeness of the two outcomes. We can think of this as a zone of ignorance:
I think it's still essentially the same thing because with the given, limited information, the options are still close to each other. Saying they are not can only be said outside of the said sitution with more context and information than the agents in the situation have. This perspective can easily develop when looking at a situation in hindsight.
I think this tendency to ignore the agent's perspective of limited information and time is a common but a dangerous one. Discussed quiye a bit in Dekker's second book that I read but whose name I forget.
