Protocol
Hand off the contingency with the task
A to-do list is incomplete when the next obvious question is 'what if that fails?'
When it fits
- The receiver may face a predictable branch after the sender is unavailable.
When to avoid it
- Contingency planning should cover plausible high-impact branches, not produce an unreadable tree of remote possibilities.
Why it matters
For the important next action, include the most plausible failure or change in conditions and the prepared response. Name the trigger, not just the fallback. This prevents the receiver from having to rediscover the sender's risk reasoning at the exact moment the plan starts failing.
Steps
- The receiver knows both the normal next step and the response to at least one material foreseeable branch.
An example
'Run batch 3. If replication backlog exceeds 20 minutes, stop the batch and notify the interface lead.'
Check your result
The receiver knows both the normal next step and the response to at least one material foreseeable branch.
Keep this limit in mind
- Contingency planning should cover plausible high-impact branches, not produce an unreadable tree of remote possibilities.
Connected ideas
Use beforeMake the receiver synthesize the handoff
Evidence and sources
Supports
AHRQ's I-PASS structure includes situation awareness and contingency planning so the receiver knows what may happen and what to do next.
Contingencies should cover plausible high-impact branches, not every imaginable scenario.
Tool: I-PASS · Situation Awareness & Contingency Planning