Trust Compass: two territories, two sides, one move
Practicum for Book 3, The Economics of Trust (the Compass house, Chapter 13). Version: 2026-07-28. Time: 40 to 60 minutes. The compass does not promise to detect a fake. It helps you choose the depth of verification in advance, name its limits, and avoid checking everything.
The compass has four parts:
- needle: the cost of an error;
- depth: from no verification to independent confirmation;
- two sides: how I verify others and what I show when others verify me;
- four norms: shared rules that nobody has to invent under pressure.
1. Set the needle before you read the message
Start with one question: What will I lose if I am wrong? Do not judge how convincing the message looks. The other party controls the presentation. You control the cost of an error.
| Depth | When to choose it | What to do |
|---|---|---|
| No questions | The error is small and reversible, such as a video, image, or someone's opinion | Do not verify it. Save your attention for expensive decisions |
| One question | You plan to cite, forward, or base an opinion on it | Ask, "Where did this come from?" Find the source |
| All three plus independent support | Money, access, documents, health, work, or reputation | Check the origin, speaker, and owner of responsibility. Move to a second channel that the sender does not control |
My three expensive scenarios:
- Home: ______________________________________________
- Work or business: _____________________________________
- One more: __________________________________________
2. Home territory
| How I verify | What I show when someone verifies me |
|---|---|
| A family check phrase stops a request. It does not authorize a payment | My family knows one stable number or channel where they can reach me |
| Every request for money ends with a call I make to a saved number | I have already said, "The real me will not be offended by a check" |
| Urgency triggers a pause until independent confirmation | Children and older relatives follow the same agreement and have permission to end the call |
| An agent that can spend money has a written limit and action list | I can show my authority and the assistant's limits instead of trying to remember them after an error |
One move at home this week:
For the full conversation and printable card, use the Family trust protocol.
3. Work and business territory
| How I verify | What I show when someone verifies me |
|---|---|
| I always confirm an expensive instruction through an independent second channel | I have a canonical channel, a named decision owner, and a history people can check |
| A junior employee may stop a senior person and receives thanks for checking | Colleagues and clients know who is responsible for what |
| A bot identifies itself as a bot. The channel has a human owner, limits, and a clear way to reach a person | The Honest AI policy explains where a machine works, where a person steps in, and who repairs an error |
| A detector gives me a reason to ask questions. It does not make a decision about a person | Drafts, versions, sources, and live references let people verify my work without an oath |
One move at work this week:
For the other side of the table, open the Trust footprint map. If an important file could become part of a dispute, use The first day with an important file.
You can fill both territories, save Markdown, and print the protocol in the browser-based Trust compass.
4. End the check with an honest limit
Verification rarely produces an absolute "authentic." It should answer a narrower question: Do I have enough support for this decision at this cost of error?
| Limit | My note |
|---|---|
| Confirmed | |
| Probable | |
| Unknown |
Decision I will make with this limit:
5. Four points of the compass
A norm works when people say it aloud and apply it to everyone.
- Every family has its own phrase. "If I call and ask for money, ask for the phrase. The real me will not be offended."
- Expensive actions require a second channel. "We never transfer money because of one message. This rule applies to everyone, including me."
- A bot always identifies itself, and a person owns its words. "A client must know whom they are speaking with. Every bot has a named person responsible for it."
- A detector does not pass sentence. "A risk score from software gives us a reason to ask a question. It is not a basis for a decision about a person."
Norm I will state first:
6. Who else reads your trail?
Some of the parties checking you are already software systems. A responsible person's name works better than "the team." A date works better than "recently." A number needs a unit. A research claim needs a primary source.
- My important name, role, and specialty are stated consistently on the main pages.
- My case studies include dates, source figures, and a clear result.
- My main claims link to primary sources.
- I document errors and corrections instead of hiding them.
Compare two AI answers about you. A difference is not a verdict. It points to a missing or unstable source. For current context, see the machine web.
The first ninety minutes
- 30 minutes: List the three places where a mistake would cost you most.
- 30 minutes: Create independent support for the most expensive scenario. Record whom you call, which saved number you use, what you ask, and what you do if nobody answers.
- 30 minutes: State one norm to your family or team.
- Two more minutes: See what one person and two different AI assistants can find about you.
The useful result is not "I verify more." It is "I verify somewhere else." The compass makes deception more expensive. It does not make anyone invulnerable.
If you want one final artifact instead of notes from each section, complete the one-page trust protocol. For a completed composite example, see Marina and her family.