Intervention specification template
Owner, information, preventable actions, alterable states, disagreement path, incentives, cost, and reach time.
MEC-16 Intervention specification
Replace the human-in-the-loop checkbox with a specification of who intervenes, what they can see, what they can prevent or alter, and what happens when they disagree.
Permanent link /mechanisms/patterns/intervention-specification
Where it fits
Filters and handoffs
Tagged for Governance, Friction with validator handshakes. Includes 3 steps, 3 reusable assets, and 4 snippet blocks.
Copy citation (APA/BibTeX)
Cite this page Formats: APA, MLA, Chicago, BibTeX, RIS
APA
Ethotechnics Institute Research Team. (2026). MEC-16 Intervention specification. Ethotechnics Institute. https://ethotechnics.org/mechanisms/patterns/intervention-specification
MLA
Ethotechnics Institute Research Team. "MEC-16 Intervention specification." Ethotechnics Institute, 2026, https://ethotechnics.org/mechanisms/patterns/intervention-specification.
Chicago
Ethotechnics Institute Research Team. "MEC-16 Intervention specification." Ethotechnics Institute. Jan 9, 2026. https://ethotechnics.org/mechanisms/patterns/intervention-specification.
BibTeX
@misc{mechanism_intervention-specification,
title={MEC-16 Intervention specification},
author={Ethotechnics Institute Research Team},
year={2026},
howpublished={Ethotechnics Institute},
url={https://ethotechnics.org/mechanisms/patterns/intervention-specification},
version={v1.1.0}
}
RIS
TY - WEB TI - MEC-16 Intervention specification AU - Ethotechnics Institute Research Team PY - 2026 UR - https://ethotechnics.org/mechanisms/patterns/intervention-specification ER -
Specification overview
At-a-glance details for planning and handoffs.
Capture the scope, assets, and validator handshakes before diving into the steps.
Spec essentials
What ships with this mechanism
- 3 steps with checklist-ready owners.
- 3 reusable assets for briefs and runbooks.
- 4 reuse-ready snippet blocks.
- 3 glossary anchors for shared terms.
Filters & validators
Where this spec sits in the system
Tagged in 2 filters with 2 linked validators.
Glossary anchors
Link back to the definitions.
Jump to the glossary terms that frame this mechanism.
Steps
Put the mechanism in motion.
Start with the field cues, then use the assets to keep the work legible.
3 steps with checklist-ready owners, plus linked assets for handoffs.
0 of 3 steps complete
Assets
Keep outputs reusable.
Link or copy these assets into design docs, runbooks, and briefs so the mechanism travels with the work.
Reach-time measurement
Observed time between the trigger and the intervener being in a position to act.
Disagreement log
Cases where the intervener disagreed, what route it took, and what changed.
Reuse-ready snippets
Copy policy, audit, and incident language.
Use these snippets in requirements, audits, and postmortems with the mechanism permalink.
Policy requirement
Policy requirement (MEC-16 Intervention specification) - Any control described as human oversight is documented as an intervention specification with owner, information available, actions preventable, states alterable, and on-disagreement path. - The specification records the incentives, the cost of intervening, and the time to reach the decision. Reference: https://ethotechnics.org/mechanisms/patterns/intervention-specification
Product requirement
Product requirement (MEC-16) - The interface presents the intervener with the information the specification names, before the action commits. - Disagreement is a recorded outcome with a route, not an unlogged override.
Audit evidence checklist
Audit evidence checklist (MEC-16) [ ] Every claimed oversight control has a current intervention specification. [ ] Reach time and cost of intervening are measured, not asserted. [ ] Disagreement outcomes are logged with what changed as a result.
Postmortem trigger
Postmortem trigger (MEC-16) Trigger review when a decision described as human-reviewed proceeded without the reviewer being able to alter it.
Example usage
Specifying review on an automated suspension
A concrete scenario to help teams see how the pieces fit together.
How it plays out
A trust and safety team documents that the on-call reviewer sees the evidence and the account history, can prevent suspension for 30 minutes, can reverse it for 14 days, and that disagreement routes to a policy owner within one business day.
Anti-patterns
Common failure cases and counterfactuals
Use these to avoid superficial compliance and clarify what success requires.
Rubber-stamp review
A human approves in bulk without the information or the time to alter the outcome, and the approval is counted as oversight.
Counterfactual: The specification states what the reviewer sees, what they can change, and how long they have.
False-positive warning: High approval rates are not proof of rubber-stamping; the test is whether refusal was possible and reachable.
Oversight named but not scoped
Policy says a human is in the loop without saying which decisions, which states, or which disagreement path.
Counterfactual: Each oversight claim resolves to a specification covering named decisions.
False-positive warning: One specification can cover a class of decisions if the class is stated.
Validators
Pair validators with this mechanism.
Use these tools to size risk and keep the stewardship path visible.
Validator
Maintenance Simulator
Tabletop simulation that plays through outages, maintenance windows, and handoffs to stress-test coverage.
Validator
Burden Modeler
Quantifies task load, cognitive friction, and risk exposure so you can reroute toil before it burns people out.