QAEDA-TST-008 · feedback control
Measure efficacy and make rollback real
How will we know the intervention reduced the stated harm, what adverse effects will be measured, and what mechanism actually reverses or narrows the system if it fails?
Pass condition
What a defensible proposal should be able to show.
The proposal predeclares success and failure measures, evaluates privacy/liberty/error costs, publishes aggregate evidence where possible, and identifies who can narrow, suspend, or terminate the intervention.
Warning signs
Signals that the proposal is drifting.
- More flags, more removals, or more surveillance are treated as proof of effectiveness.
- No baseline or counterfactual exists for comparing outcomes.
- Adverse effects such as false positives, chilling, exclusion, security risk, or bias are not tracked.
- There is no practical rollback path once infrastructure and institutional dependencies form.
Evidence to demand
What should exist before confidence rises.
- Pre/post or comparative outcome measures tied to the original harm.
- Adverse-effect metrics and subgroup error analysis where relevant.
- Independent evaluation or reproducible audit evidence.
- A named authority, technical mechanism, and timetable for rollback or redesign.
A system can become permanent because it produces measurable enforcement activity even when its marginal contribution to safety remains unknown.
Trace the basis
Related public records
These links serve different functions. Arguments explain reasoning, Claims own evidence confidence, Positions state current commitments, Essays provide synthesis, and Reading Paths provide navigation.
Arguments
QAEDA-ARG-004Function creep is a serious risk, not destinyevidence synthesisQAEDA-ARG-005Consequential algorithmic inference needs recourseworking thesisQAEDA-ARG-012Audit behavior, not only policy promisesmethodological ruleClaims
QAEDA-CLM-015supportedFunction creep and institutional ratchetsQAEDA-CLM-018verifiedCognitive Liberty Audit methodologyQAEDA-CLM-020editorial_inferenceAlgorithmic due processPositions
algorithmic-due-processConsequential algorithmic decisions need recourseworking positionexpansion-riskFunction creep is a risk, not destinyevidence backed observationprovenance-correctionCorrections should remain visiblecore principleEssays
QAEDA-ART-006The safety poison pill, narrowedEditorial synthesisQAEDA-ART-007The expansion ratchetEditorial synthesisQAEDA-ART-009Audit the gatekeeperEditorial synthesisReading paths
QAEDA-COL-001Start with the methodCurated navigationQAEDA-COL-003Safety without a permanent ratchetCurated navigationApplied examples
Worked cases using this test
The cases are hypothetical or composite. They show how this test behaves when other constraints differ.
Decision discipline
No single passing test licenses the intervention.
Apply the full sequence. A defined harm does not excuse a weak nexus; a narrow mechanism does not excuse secret secondary use; an appeal process does not prove efficacy.