Trust is a dynamic variable — extend verification intervals for consistent quality, tighten them when errors surface
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.
Why This Is a Rule
Fixed verification intervals produce two opposite failures over time. If verification is initially tight and never loosens despite consistent quality, the delegate is permanently over-monitored — creating verification fatigue for the reviewer and signaling distrust to the delegate. If verification is initially loose and never tightens despite quality issues, problems compound undetected.
Dynamic calibration solves both: verification frequency responds to performance evidence. Consistent quality earns extended intervals (less checking, more autonomy). Quality issues trigger tightened intervals (more checking, more oversight). Trust becomes a variable that the system adjusts based on data, not a fixed assumption.
This mirrors how human trust naturally develops — but makes it explicit and evidence-based rather than implicit and feelings-based. "I trust you because you've produced quality work for three months" is evidence-calibrated trust. "I trust you because you seem competent" is impression-based trust that may not match reality. The verification interval is the operationalization of trust level.
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."