Explores how blame dynamics impact oversight effectiveness in monitoring systems, suggesting new evaluation models.
Recurring oversight blind spots — an auditor who misses a specialist's error — are increasingly read as equilibria: where blame for a missed failure rises with how much a monitor could see, seeing less is a way to bear less. A companion model shows the blind spot survives across a portfolio of controls, but couples them only through a shared attention budget, leaving a trapped control inert. This paper makes blame relative — judged against the diligence the monitor demonstrably exercised elsewhere — coupling the controls through a positive, symmetric blame-covariance. Relative blame then recruits a trapped control past a finite threshold, breaking that inertness; yet because the covariance is symmetric, recruitment is ordered by the stakes of the rest, so the blind spot is stickiest where every control is high-stakes. Equivalently the monitor holds the anti-Markowitz portfolio, its coverage falling rather than rising in stakes. Yardstick evaluation, meant to broaden coverage, can entrench the blind spot it was meant to close.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Mikio Hanaeda (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: