Never automate decisions with genuine per-instance novelty…
Do not automate decisions where the outcome is genuinely different each instance even if the category recurs (interpersonal conflicts, creative problems, novel diagnoses), because automating decisions with genuine novelty produces rigidity disguised as efficiency.
When This Fires
- When tempted to create a "rule" for how you handle interpersonal situations, creative decisions, or complex diagnoses
- When someone says "let's just standardize how we handle X" where X has genuine per-instance variation
- When Only automate decisions that are frequent, stable…'s criteria suggest automation but something feels off — check for hidden per-instance novelty
- When an automated response produces a bad outcome because the specific instance differed from the category norm
Common Failure Mode
Confusing expertise with automation readiness: "I've handled 50 team conflicts, so I can automate my response." Your 50 instances of experience should make you better at deliberating each new conflict, not make you stop deliberating. The expertise goes into richer pattern recognition and better contextual judgment — both of which require active deliberation to deploy.
The Protocol
(1) Before automating a recurring decision, ask: "Would the optimal response genuinely be the same for the next 10 instances?" (2) If yes (dress code, email filing, morning routine order) → safe to automate (Only automate decisions that are frequent, stable…). (3) If the response should vary by instance (conflict resolution, creative direction, strategic advice) → keep deliberative. (4) For borderline cases, try the automation for one week and track: how often does the automated response feel wrong for the specific instance? If >20% → the decision has too much per-instance novelty for automation. (5) In novel-per-instance domains, invest in deliberation quality (better frameworks, richer pattern libraries) rather than automation.