Cascading verification escalation
When a verification signal degrades, escalate to deeper sampling; when sampling reveals a pattern, trigger a structural audit; when an audit reveals a structural problem, modify the delegation itself—this creates a cascading response protocol where each verification layer can activate the next.
When This Fires
- When implementing the three-layer verification architecture (Three verification layers)
- When verification data shows concerning trends but you're unsure how to respond
- When you need a systematic escalation protocol rather than ad-hoc investigation
- Complements Three-tier error budgets (green/yellow/red error budget tiers) with the specific inter-layer escalation logic
Common Failure Mode
Flat response: every verification concern gets the same level of investigation. A single missed deadline triggers a full structural audit (overkill). Persistent quality degradation gets only a metric review (insufficient). The cascading protocol matches investigation depth to signal severity: mild signal → mild investigation, persistent pattern → deeper investigation, structural finding → structural change.
The Protocol
(1) When continuous signals degrade → escalate to sampling: manually review 3-5 recent outputs against quality standards. Is the degradation real? (2) If sampling confirms a pattern (not a one-off) → escalate to structural audit: examine the delegation specification, the delegate's capability, the process design, and the working conditions. What structural factor is producing the pattern? (3) If the audit identifies a structural problem → modify the delegation: adjust the specification, provide additional training, redesign the process, reallocate the work, or reclaim the task (When reclaiming a non-delegable decision, retain only…). (4) After modification → return to normal monitoring and observe whether the cascading signal resolves. (5) If the signal continues despite modification → the root cause wasn't identified. Re-audit with broader scope.