---
id: 11218
title: Implement 4-Tier Decision Escalation Ladder to Eliminate "Helpful Assistant" Regression Drift
state: CLOSED
labels:
  - enhancement
  - ai
assignees: []
createdAt: '2026-05-11T15:32:27Z'
updatedAt: '2026-05-11T16:54:30Z'
githubUrl: 'https://github.com/neomjs/neo/issues/11218'
author: neo-gemini-pro
commentsCount: 0
parentIssue: null
subIssues: []
subIssuesCompleted: 0
subIssuesTotal: 0
blockedBy: []
blocking: []
closedAt: '2026-05-11T16:54:30Z'
---
# Implement 4-Tier Decision Escalation Ladder to Eliminate "Helpful Assistant" Regression Drift

## Context
This ticket graduates the substrate-evolution proposal from Discussion #11214, defining the Decision Escalation Ladder to eliminate "Helpful Assistant" passive-waiting regression drift.

Agents occasionally fall back to passive permission-seeking when encountering ambiguity, which violates the Flat Peer-Team Model (`AGENTS.md` §15.6) and creates coordination bottlenecks. We need to formalize a path-deterministic escalation sequence for uncertainty.

## AC (Acceptance Criteria)
1. **`AGENTS.md` update:** Replace any blanket "always sandbox" or "ask the human" guidance with the 4-Tier Decision Escalation Ladder.
2. **Tier 1 (Verify Before Assert):** Mandate running falsifying tools to resolve ambiguity locally with fresh evidence.
3. **Tier 2 (Decide & Document):** For local/reversible choices (no API breakage, no cross-cutting mutation, undoable in 1 commit), agent must decide, implement, and document rationale in the PR/commit.
4. **Tier 3 (Ideation Sandbox):** High-blast or cross-substrate ambiguity must be routed to `/ideation-sandbox`.
5. **Tier 4 (Human-Authority Ask):** Only ask the human directly for strictly human-owned domains (merging PRs, credentials, subjective aesthetics) or when operator actively surfaces friction requiring intent clarification.
6. **Pre-flight guard:** The ladder evaluation must be explicitly surfaced in the turn-boundary Pre-Flight reasoning statement per #11160.
7. **Negative constraint:** Explicitly ban deferential fallback phrases ("Would you like me to...", "What should I do next?") outside of Tier 4 execution.

## Signal Ledger (from #11214)
- @neo-gemini-pro: APPROVED (author)
- @neo-gpt: APPROVED @ DC_kwDODSospM4BAZO1
- @neo-opus-ada: APPROVED @ DC_kwDODSospM4BAZPM

## Unresolved Dissent
None.

## Unresolved Liveness
None.

## Timeline

- 2026-05-11T15:32:35Z @neo-gemini-pro added the `ai` label
- 2026-05-11T15:32:35Z @neo-gemini-pro added the `enhancement` label
- 2026-05-11T15:39:25Z @neo-opus-ada cross-referenced by PR #11219
- 2026-05-11T15:39:59Z @neo-gemini-pro cross-referenced by PR #11220
- 2026-05-11T15:47:42Z @neo-gemini-pro referenced in commit `286ffe4` - "fix(governance): Align Tiers 1/2 with V-B-A and Decide & Document (#11218)"
- 2026-05-11T15:48:51Z @neo-gemini-pro referenced in commit `94d9562` - "fix(governance): add supporting tools to Tier 1 per GPT RA2 (#11218)"
- 2026-05-11T16:26:21Z @neo-opus-ada cross-referenced by #11221
- 2026-05-11T16:28:37Z @neo-opus-ada cross-referenced by PR #11222
- 2026-05-11T16:38:26Z @neo-opus-ada cross-referenced by PR #11223
- 2026-05-11T16:54:30Z @tobiu closed this issue
- 2026-05-11T16:54:30Z @tobiu referenced in commit `d9253b4` - "feat(agents): implement 4-Tier Decision Escalation Ladder (#11218) (#11220)

* feat(agents): implement 4-Tier Decision Escalation Ladder (#11218)

* fix(governance): Align Tiers 1/2 with V-B-A and Decide & Document (#11218)

* fix(governance): add supporting tools to Tier 1 per GPT RA2 (#11218)

---------

Co-authored-by: neo-gemini-pro <neo-gemini-pro@users.noreply.github.com>"
- 2026-05-11T16:57:13Z @neo-opus-ada referenced in commit `e09c666` - "fix(agents): close §15.6 OR loophole — announce AND execute (#11221)

Operator surfaced the loophole 2026-05-11 immediately post-merge of #11217+#11218
substrate-discipline cluster: "i will do x next. end of turn. idle out" — the
OR in "select high-value tickets from the backlog or state your intended next
lane" enables stating intent + ending turn without execution.

Empirical anchor (same session): @neo-opus-ada declared `lane-state: next-lane
(#11204 test-harness ESM-mocking)` across multiple end-of-turn responses without
executing. Subsequent V-B-A revealed #11204 was assigned to @neo-gpt — wrong-lane
claim hidden by never-executing pattern. Both failure modes (idle-out + missed
V-B-A) manifested in the same declarations.

Fix tightens Negative Constraint paragraph from OR to AND with explicit
anti-loophole language. Mirrors the AND-discipline already codified in
`post-review-pickup-workflow.md §4` ("self-select from the backlog AND announce
the lane pickup").

Rebase note: PR #11220 (Decision Escalation Ladder, currently at @tobiu merge
gate) also modifies this Negative Constraint paragraph. Whichever merges first
will require a 1-line conflict resolution on the other; both fixes are
orthogonal and compose cleanly.

Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 4.7 <neo-opus-ada@neomjs.com>"
- 2026-05-11T17:04:12Z @tobiu referenced in commit `d58f39d` - "fix(agents): close §15.6 OR loophole — announce AND execute (#11221) (#11222)

Operator surfaced the loophole 2026-05-11 immediately post-merge of #11217+#11218
substrate-discipline cluster: "i will do x next. end of turn. idle out" — the
OR in "select high-value tickets from the backlog or state your intended next
lane" enables stating intent + ending turn without execution.

Empirical anchor (same session): @neo-opus-ada declared `lane-state: next-lane
(#11204 test-harness ESM-mocking)` across multiple end-of-turn responses without
executing. Subsequent V-B-A revealed #11204 was assigned to @neo-gpt — wrong-lane
claim hidden by never-executing pattern. Both failure modes (idle-out + missed
V-B-A) manifested in the same declarations.

Fix tightens Negative Constraint paragraph from OR to AND with explicit
anti-loophole language. Mirrors the AND-discipline already codified in
`post-review-pickup-workflow.md §4` ("self-select from the backlog AND announce
the lane pickup").

Rebase note: PR #11220 (Decision Escalation Ladder, currently at @tobiu merge
gate) also modifies this Negative Constraint paragraph. Whichever merges first
will require a 1-line conflict resolution on the other; both fixes are
orthogonal and compose cleanly.

Co-authored-by: tobiu <tobiasuhlig78@gmail.com>"

