Marina and her family: a first trust protocol
A composite example for Book 3, The Economics of Trust. Version: 2026-08-11. This is not the author's story or a model of the "right life." The gaps are intentional. They show what a normal first pass looks like.
Marina is an independent product consultant. She lives with her partner, regularly helps her father with banking questions, and runs small projects for two clients. During the past year, she faced two unpleasant situations: a call "from her father" asking for an urgent money transfer and an email "from a client" with new payment details. She did not lose money in either case, but both decisions had to be made under pressure.
Home: one costly situation
| Field | Marina's first pass |
|---|---|
| Costly situation | Her father or partner calls from an unfamiliar number and asks her to transfer money at once. |
| Cost of an error | Lost money and shame that may make family members hide the next problem. |
| Second channel | Marina does not call the number in the message. She calls her father's saved number or writes to her partner in their usual chat. |
| Independent support | Her partner knows the rule and can stop the transfer. Her father has a printed note by the phone. |
| What Marina shows | Her family knows that the real Marina will not be offended by a check phrase or a pause. |
| Human owner | The person whose money will leave confirms the transfer. An assistant or relative cannot cancel the pause. |
Gap in the first pass: the family has not discussed limits for a voice assistant that can order goods. Their next conversation will cover this case too.
Work and money: one costly instruction
| Field | Marina's first pass |
|---|---|
| Costly situation | A client asks by email to change payment details or grant access to project materials. |
| Cost of an error | The money goes to the wrong account, and the client loses trust in Marina as the process owner. |
| Second channel | Marina confirms a change in payment details by calling the number in the agreement, not the number in the email. |
| Independent support | The project folder holds the agreement, original messages, the invoice version, and a log of who approved the change. |
| What Marina shows | Her website and work documents give one address for financial questions, the name of the decision owner, and the expected time for a human response. |
| Human owner | Marina confirms payment details herself. An automated assistant may prepare a draft but cannot send it. |
Gap in the first pass: an old project has no short decision log. Marina will not reconstruct the past, but she will create a log for each new project.
If she makes the mistake herself
Marina wrote down a response process, not a promise:
- In the first few hours: "Our verification process failed. Here is what we know now and what we have stopped."
- One week later: show the corrected instruction, the owner, and an independent confirmation channel.
- After that: keep a short note about the fix instead of hiding it in a message thread.
Use the full trust repair protocol.
One move for the next 30 days
By 2026-09-10, Marina will have a 20-minute conversation with her family, print the note for her father, and add a clause about confirming new payment details to her contract template. Her next review date is 2026-10-10.
Do not copy this answer. Choose your own two costly situations. If a situation does not involve money, access, health, work, or reputation, it may need a lighter verification process.
Build your version: one-page result · browser-based Trust Compass.