Following this too rigidly will also get you in trouble. As we've seen recently with tech enabling things like stalking and harassment which while pathological are harmful and widespread so do need to be accounted for by process. It's a good consideration but you're still stuck back where you started with your own judgement.
I kinda agree, I think. We’d have to get down to use cases for me to see if we’re on the same page.
For me, a certain aspect of the pathological process here is one that ties to correct the pathalogical symptom. I don’t think any process that plays whack-a-mole at symptoms will ever have much success.
The quote that springs to mind is Henry David Thoreau
“There are a thousand hacking at the branches of evil to one who is striking at the root.”
So I’m ok with the assertion that well founded process can/should guide behavior, but if we just throw exceptional process corrections at exceptional behavior as mentioned in the article, we get gridlock and the classic story of “why we can’t have nice things.”
> a certain aspect of the pathological process here is one that ties to correct the pathalogical symptom
That's not how I had been thinking about it but rings true for me. I have approached it more from "the mitigation should be proportional to the potential harm" angle. But I like your model, it gives a little more guidance on what sort of changes will be successful.
