Ask 'can a system handle this?' before 'can a person?'…

Default to the delegation hierarchy sequence: first ask 'can a system handle this?', then 'can a system handle 80% with a person handling exceptions?', and only then 'does this require full human judgment?'—to prevent systematic under-investment in systems.

When This Fires

When deciding how to delegate a COULD DELEGATE task (Classify every task as ONLY ME, COULD DELEGATE, or SHOULD…)
When assigning work to team members — check if a system could handle it first
When recurring tasks consume human attention despite being routine and predictable
When building delegation infrastructure (Distinguish ONLY ME by necessity from ONLY ME by default…)

Common Failure Mode

Jumping to person-delegation: "I'll have the intern handle the weekly data report." Can a script handle 90% of the report with the intern reviewing edge cases? If yes, the intern's time is better spent on the 10% exceptions while the script handles the rest. Person-first delegation wastes human attention on automatable work.

The Protocol

(1) For each COULD DELEGATE task, run the three gates in order: Gate 1: "Can a system (script, template, automation, tool) handle this entirely without human involvement?" If yes → build or configure the system. Stop. Gate 2: "Can a system handle the routine cases (80%+) while a person handles exceptions?" If yes → build the system for routine cases, create an exception-handling protocol for the person. Stop. Gate 3: "Does every instance genuinely require human judgment?" If yes → delegate to a person with proper specifications (The competent stranger test). (2) Default assumption: most recurring tasks can be handled at Gate 1 or Gate 2. Reaching Gate 3 should be the exception, not the rule. (3) Review Gate 3 tasks quarterly: has the technology or tooling evolved to move them to Gate 1 or 2?