10 to the 23 AI logo

Practice Library

Governance patternfeedback

State-feedback vigilance

Correction effort that rises when observed error rises, and relaxes when it subsides — oversight as a thermostat, not a setting.

What it changes

increasedPeople or agents using it(correction, dynamically)
dampenedFailures adopted by people or agents(while escalated)

Who can pull it

Deploying organizationHarness builderOversight board

What it looks like institutionally

Fixed oversight is tuned for an average day; deployed systems have bad weeks. Vigilance escalation ties correction intensity to what monitoring actually observes: more sampling, more mandatory checks, more second reads when error or adoption signals climb — automatically, by rule, not by someone noticing and scheduling a meeting.

The controller framing matters: escalation and de-escalation are both specified in advance, so vigilance doesn't ratchet into permanent maximum-cost oversight or decay into none.

This is the pattern that turns monitoring from reporting into governance: a dashboard nobody is required to act on is journalism, not control.

Addresses: Static oversight vs dynamic risk · Slow institutional reaction. Test a version of this lever in the PAN Lab.

Deciding whether this lever fits your deployment?

Which patterns matter — and in what order — depends on your system's actual shape. Ranking your options on evidence, with what can backfire stated, is engagement work.