Skip to content

Latest commit

 

History

History
63 lines (44 loc) · 3.53 KB

File metadata and controls

63 lines (44 loc) · 3.53 KB

Research: High-Stakes Review Patterns (RQ2)

Research Question

How do high-stakes industries (aviation, medicine, nuclear, law) structure their review processes to prevent both omission (failing to find real issues) and manipulation (claiming issues don't exist)?

Key Findings

1. Verifying the Act of Observation

Industry Mechanism How It Works
Aviation RFID / barcode scanning Inspector must physically scan components at the inspection site — cannot sign off remotely
Nuclear Qualification-linked RFID Operator scans personal ID + component tag; system verifies certification before work begins
Railways Shisa kanko (pointing & calling) Operator physically points at indicator and verbally calls out state — engages multiple cognitive channels
Legal Audit trail analytics System tracks document open duration, scrolling, keystrokes — 2.4 seconds on a 50-page document invalidates "reviewed" claim

Adopted in Diffract: Evidence requirements (mechanism 1), Cognitive Anchoring (mechanism 2)

2. Bounding the Scope

Industry Mechanism How It Works
Nuclear Hold points Work must stop at defined intervals for independent verification before proceeding
Aviation Sterile Cockpit Rule Below 10,000 feet, no non-essential conversation — protects cognitive bandwidth during critical phases
Nuclear Geofencing GPS perimeters enforce spatial boundaries — transport vehicles trigger alerts if they deviate from approved routes

Adopted in Diffract: PLAN checkpoint (hold point before DO), Compass governor (scope bounding)

3. Verifying "Nothing Found"

Industry Mechanism How It Works
UXO clearance Blind seeding Inert munitions secretly buried before sweep — team that misses a seed must resurvey the entire grid
Radiology Synthetic defect injection Known abnormal slides mixed into daily screening — missed slides trigger threshold recalibration
Legal e-discovery Control sets Pre-coded documents seeded into review pool — missed documents force algorithm retraining

Adopted in Diffract: Nothing-Found Verification (mechanism 5)

4. Combining Independent Perspectives

Industry Mechanism How It Works
Aviation Junior First protocol Junior officer states assessment before captain speaks — prevents anchoring bias
Aviation Challenge-Response checklists Monitoring pilot reads challenge; flying pilot physically verifies and verbally responds — mutual cross-check
Aviation Required Inspection Items (RII) Mechanic who performs repair cannot inspect it — independent inspector from separate reporting chain
Medicine Dual-reading Two radiologists independently read same images — final report requires reconciliation
Medicine Tumor Board Flat multi-disciplinary panel (surgeon, oncologist, radiologist, pathologist) — no single specialty dominates

Adopted in Diffract: Challenge-Response (mechanism 6), Finder/Decider Separation (mechanism 7)

Structural Insight

High-stakes industries survive not because their operators are infallible, but because their review structures treat fallibility as an absolute, measurable certainty.

The common pattern across all four industries: assume the reviewer will fail, then engineer the environment so that failure is trapped.

Diffract applies the same philosophy to code review.