I would like to also offer a concept called "duty of care" although it goes by other names.
For ATC it might mean if a controller knows something a pilot should know, but the controller is not certain, he/she should pass on that information.
In the above, that would certainly include, RVR, reported cloud base, previous pilot reports, and so on. But not, in my opinion, the approach minimums. These are published and available through paper or electronic displays.
In Australia, years ago, the Federal Government exercised Operational Control over all IFR flights and made ATC the responsible agency. We could, and did, close airspace and airports due to weather minimums, close approaches due to below minimums reports and order pilots to divert, and to where, when we calculated that they had insufficient fuel. (Yes, we monitored their fuel states!)
I believe, back then, the majority of pilots actually trusted the Government system. It was impartial, eliminated peer or company pressure on pilots, was based entirely on met reports including from ATC Tower controllers. (They were and still are all qualified weather observers, hence we do not have to broadcast the METAR as our ATIS)
Anyway, the Feds gave Operational Control to the companies, they promptly gave it to the PIC. But we still can be dragged through the courts if we forget our "duty of care"!