Risk-tiered oversight
Spend scarce verification where stakes are highest: mandatory correction plus ground-truth checks for the high-stakes tier.
What it changes
Who can pull it
What it looks like institutionally
Uniform oversight is a budget spread thin. Tiering concentrates it: classify uses by consequence (adverse action against a person sits at the top), and attach mandatory human correction and ground-truth verification to the top tier, while lighter monitoring covers the rest.
The discipline is in the tier boundaries. Tiers defined by the system's convenience ("low risk" because review is expensive) invert the control. Tier by what a wrong output does to a person, and let the EU AI Act's treatment of benefits-eligibility systems as high-risk calibrate intuitions about where public-sector uses sit.
Tiering also makes ceilings manageable: if verification catches only a fraction, aim that fraction at the decisions that can least afford to be wrong.
Addresses: Uniformly thin oversight · High-stakes decisions on autopilot. Test a version of this lever in the PAN Lab.