Verification Gap

When systems can’t prove what they’re doing, trust is replaced by assumption.

What it looks like

• Decisions can’t be reconstructed after the fact
• Permissions are implied, not explicit
• “We’re compliant” is claimed, not demonstrated
• Incidents become arguments about what happened, not corrections

Failure mechanism

The system lacks provable truth under pressure—no reliable evidence trail, no independent verification, and no auditable permission boundaries.

Minimum viable controls

Verification

• Define and log who did what, when, and under what permission
• Make key records tamper-evident (immutable logging where it matters)
• Require independent testing for claims that affect safety, rights, or money

Counterweights

• Separate “builders” from “verifiers” for high-impact claims
• Give reviewers the ability to block / pause / escalate
• Protect dissent when verification conflicts with delivery pressure

Correction Loops

• Routine audits on the smallest meaningful cadence
• Incident reviews that produce control changes, not narrative summaries
• An “exception budget” with explicit expiry and review

Proof you’re controlling it

• Audit-ready logs exist and are accessible
• A third party (internal or external) can reproduce key conclusions
• Exceptions are tracked, time-bounded, and closed
• Escalation paths are used in practice (not only in policy)

Where it shows up

Often triggered at Organizational + Technological depths, then becomes an Institutional trust issue.

Related patterns

Oversight Theater • Crisis as Audit • Exception Drift