Something clicked for me across two recent threads here with @Mads Skak and @Alex Brown, so I mapped it out as a table. I've been trying to work out where I actually need to sit when an agent is working through files. Turns out that's not a preference, it's a property of the task. Cynefin classifies problems by how predictable they are; ICM gives you the instrument for each type. Put them side by side and you can see where the human needs to sit. The row that matters most is **Complex**. When there's no pre-known right answer, forcing a pass/fail check into a markdown file is a lie. The pipeline will look gated and be nothing of the sort. For that work you don't review the final output, you live inside the loop and co-edit the intermediate files as they form. Every output is an edit surface. **Complicated** work is different. There is a right answer, binary in principle, but only human judgement can confirm it. So the worker never self-certifies. You sit at the gates, start and end, and stay out of the execution loop. **Clear** work is machine-checkable and needs no human at all. That's most of the background volume (Jake's 10/30/60 split). **Chaotic** is not a delegation situation. One-line advice at most, human hands on. And the one I nearly missed: **Disorder**. If you can't tell which domain you're in, treat it as Complex until it declares itself. Misclassification is where the damage happens. The long game is moving work down the table, Chaotic towards Clear, as probing stabilises it. But only what has genuinely stabilised. Force the move and you fall off the cliff. Table below. Tell me where this is wrong.