Classify tool delegations as appropriate, convenient…

Before delegating a cognitive task to a tool, classify whether the delegation is appropriate (tool does it better and verification is easy), convenient (saves time but you could do it), or critical (you cannot perform it without the tool), because critical delegations create capability gaps when tools fail.

When This Fires

Before adopting any new tool for cognitive work
When evaluating existing tool dependencies for resilience
When a tool goes down and you discover you can't do the work without it — that's a critical dependency you should have identified earlier
When building AI-augmented workflows where capability delegation is increasingly common

Common Failure Mode

Drifting from convenient to critical without noticing: you start using GPS as a convenience (you could navigate without it) and gradually lose the underlying skill. Five years later, GPS failure means you can't navigate at all. The delegation silently shifted from convenient to critical as the biological skill atrophied. The classification must be re-evaluated periodically because capability atrophy changes the category.

The Protocol

(1) For each tool-delegated task, classify: Appropriate: tool is more capable AND output is easily verifiable. Low risk. Convenient: tool saves time AND you retain the underlying capability. Medium risk — ensure the capability is maintained. Critical: you cannot perform this without the tool. High risk — the tool is a single point of failure. (2) For appropriate delegations → delegate freely. The risk is minimal. (3) For convenient delegations → delegate but periodically exercise the underlying capability (Periodically perform critical delegated tasks without…) to prevent drift to critical. (4) For critical delegations → either invest in developing the biological capability (reducing dependency) or invest in tool redundancy (backup tools, fallback procedures). (5) Re-classify annually: has any convenient delegation drifted to critical?