Trust is a dynamic variable — extend verification…
Extend verification intervals when a delegate produces consistent quality outputs over time, and tighten intervals when errors surface, treating trust as a dynamic variable calibrated by accumulated evidence rather than a fixed initial condition.
When This Fires
- When managing any ongoing delegation relationship over time
- When deciding whether to increase or decrease monitoring of a delegate
- When verification feels like a burden — consistent quality may justify extended intervals
- When quality issues surface — intervals should tighten regardless of how long the delegate has performed well
Common Failure Mode
Trust inertia: maintaining the initial verification interval indefinitely. A delegate who's been producing excellent work for a year still gets weekly reviews because "that's what we set up." Or a delegate whose quality has been degrading for months still gets monthly reviews because "they've always been reliable." Trust should update on evidence. Positive evidence → extend. Negative evidence → tighten.
The Protocol
(1) Start new delegations with tight verification intervals (weekly or per-output review). (2) After 4-6 consecutive outputs meeting quality standards → extend the interval by 50% (weekly → biweekly). (3) After another 4-6 consistent outputs at the extended interval → extend again (biweekly → monthly). (4) When any output fails to meet standards → tighten one level (monthly → biweekly). Two consecutive failures → tighten two levels. (5) The verification interval is a dynamic reflection of accumulated evidence. It moves in both directions based on performance, never fixed by initial impression or habit. (6) Communicate the adjustment and its reason: "Your consistent quality has earned extended review intervals" or "This issue means we'll review more frequently until the pattern is resolved."