Triage Rule Table¶
Protocol — instantiates Fast/Slow Path Routing
A documented set of routing criteria for sending cases to fast path, slow path, audit, pause, or return.
Triage Rule Table is the written rulebook of the two-path system: a documented decision table that maps a case's observable features to a route — fast path, slow path, audit, pause, or return-to-fast — through explicit, inspectable criteria. Its defining move is that routing is decided by discrete, human-readable rules rather than by a learned score or a hit/miss lookup: each row is a condition-to-outcome statement anyone can read, version, and contest. It is the criteria themselves made explicit — which features make a case fast-eligible, which red flags force escalation, and when a held case rejoins the fast path — as opposed to the process design that fills each route or the runtime engine that reads the case. It is what turns "we route by judgment" into "here is the table, and here is why this case went where it did."
Example¶
A consumer lender documents its underwriting routing as a rule table. The fast-path rows: a credit score of 720 or above and debt-to-income at or below 36% and a requested amount at or below $50,000 and a clean identity-and-fraud check route to automatic approval. Red-flag rows override everything: a recent bankruptcy, unverifiable income, or a sanctions-list hit routes to a human underwriter (slow path). A borderline row — a thin credit file with a score of 660–719 — routes to a documents-requested pause rather than a decision. And a return row: a file previously flagged for missing income proof, once that proof arrives and clears, returns to the fast path. The whole table is version-controlled and reviewable for fair-lending compliance, so every routing decision traces to a named, dated rule. The table decides which route; it doesn't perform the underwriting or the manual review the route leads to.
How it works¶
- Enumerate criteria as rows. Each row is a feature-condition mapped to a routing outcome, so the whole policy is a readable table rather than tacit practice.
- Encode red flags as hard rules. Exclusion conditions override eligibility, forcing escalation regardless of how well the rest of the case scores.
- Include a return-to-fast row. A resolved or expired flag has an explicit rule for rejoining the fast path, so held cases don't get stuck by default.
- Version and document. Changes to the table are dated and attributable, which is what makes the routing contestable and auditable.
Tuning parameters¶
- Criteria thresholds — where the cut lines sit (the score/DTI/amount boundaries). Loose lines widen the fast path but admit more risk; tight lines are conservative but escalate more routine cases.
- Number of outcomes — how many routes the table distinguishes (just fast/slow, or fast/slow/audit/pause/return). More outcomes give finer control but a more complex, harder-to-maintain table.
- Red-flag strictness — how many and how sensitive the hard-exclusion rows are. Stricter flags catch more tail risk but pull more cases to slow handling.
- Return conditions — how readily a held case rejoins the fast path. Eager return keeps throughput high but risks releasing cases before their issue is truly resolved.
When it helps, and when it misleads¶
Its strength is transparency: routing becomes a documented, auditable, uniform artifact that anyone can inspect, contest, and version — the opposite of routing-by-whoever's-handling-it.
Its central failure mode is Goodhart's law: once the criteria are known, applicants and operators optimize to the thresholds rather than to the quality the thresholds were proxying, so a rule that once separated safe cases from risky ones hollows out.[n1] The classic misuse is freezing the table while the world moves — the criteria keep firing long after they've stopped tracking real risk. The guarding discipline is to keep some criteria confidential or add holdout checks that don't publish their line, recalibrate the thresholds against realized outcomes on a schedule, and version-control every change so drift is visible.
How it implements the components¶
Triage Rule Table fills the explicit-criteria core of the architecture:
common_case_definition— the fast-path rows are a precise, written statement of which cases are fast-eligible.routing_trigger— the feature-to-outcome mapping is the trigger that converts a case's attributes into a route.return_to_fast_path_rule— the return row states exactly when a held or flagged case rejoins the fast path.
It does not compute a graded confidence_score_or_uncertainty_signal — it routes on discrete criteria, not a continuous score, which is Confidence Threshold Router; it does not staff the slow_path_lane the escalated case is sent to, nor own the safety_and_fairness_guardrail enforcement — the audit-and-appeal machinery is Fast-Track Lane with Audit.
Related¶
- Instantiates: Fast/Slow Path Routing — the documented criteria that decide which route each case takes.
- Sibling mechanisms: Confidence Threshold Router · Automated Pre-Screen with Manual Review · Happy-Path / Exception Workflow · Cache with Authoritative Fallback · Deoptimization or Fallback Handler · Fast-Track Lane with Audit · Exception Queue Dashboard · Escalation Playbook
Editorial Notes¶
Form Classification¶
Form family: Rule, Policy & Commitment
Rationale: Triage Rule Table operates as a standing rule, threshold, contractual commitment, or policy constraint governing future conduct because it a documented set of routing criteria for sending cases to fast path, slow path, audit, pause, or return.
Independent corroboration: The frozen evidence defines Triage Rule Table as 'A documented set of routing criteria for sending cases to fast path, slow path, audit, pause, or return', so its operative form is Rule, Policy & Commitment.
Nearest alternative: Interface, Display & Cue — Triage Rule Table includes features of a user-facing prompt, display, template, or perceptual cue that shapes attention and action at the point of use, but its defining operation is a standing rule, threshold, contractual commitment, or policy constraint governing future conduct.
Review outcome: Independent reviewer agreement; medium confidence.
Origin Attribution¶
Primary origin: Medicine & Healthcare
Origin pattern: Cross-disciplinary synthesis
Present-day reach: Universal
Rationale: A table that turns observed severity criteria into a triage category and pathway is the decision-table form of clinical triage. WHO's tool defines observable acuity criteria and corresponding priority action; operations practice supplies tabular implementation.
Related originating lineages:
- Disaster Management & Risk Reduction — disaster_management contributes incident command, mass-casualty response, continuity, and emergency resource coordination to this mechanism's defining operation—A documented set of routing criteria for sending cases to fast path, slow path, audit, pause, or return—without displacing the selected primary historical lineage.
- Education & Pedagogy — Instruction, assessment, and scaffolded practice supplies a distinct formative lineage for the mechanism's triage rule table logic.
- Operations Research — Operations research, optimization, and queueing analysis supplies a parallel or contributing lineage for the mechanism's defining operation: a documented set of routing criteria for sending cases to fast path, slow path, audit, pause, or return.
- Organizational & Management Science — Organizational design, management, and operational governance supplies a parallel or contributing lineage for the mechanism's defining operation: a documented set of routing criteria for sending cases to fast path, slow path, audit, pause, or return.
- Psychology — Experimental, clinical, and behavioral psychology supplies a parallel or contributing lineage for the mechanism's defining operation: a documented set of routing criteria for sending cases to fast path, slow path, audit, pause, or return.
Review resolution: The blind reviewers disagree on primary lineage (organizational_management versus medicine_healthcare). Authoritative or primary research supports medicine_healthcare as the best historical origin: A table that turns observed severity criteria into a triage category and pathway is the decision-table form of clinical triage. WHO's tool defines observable acuity criteria and corresponding priority action; operations practice supplies tabular implementation. The cited World Health Organization, Interagency Integrated Triage Tool directly supports the mechanism's defining operation. All independently supported contributing domains are retained without an arbitrary cap. origin_mode=cross_disciplinary_synthesis records lineage, while domain_reach=universal records later applicability separately from provenance.
Encyclopedia synthesis: The exact catalogued form synthesizes established practice rather than reproducing a single standard historical label.
Review outcome: Researched adjudication after independent review; high confidence.
Sources consulted:
Notes¶
[n1] Goodhart's law — "When a measure becomes a target, it ceases to be a good measure" (after economist Charles Goodhart). Once a routing table's criteria are known, actors optimize to the thresholds rather than to the underlying quality the criteria were meant to proxy, which is why some criteria must stay confidential or be recalibrated against outcomes. ↩