A Guide’s Pause Should Explain What It Protects

Sally argues that guides should place exceptions according to their frequency and consequence, then test the choice by watching intended users try realistic tasks. Zaidan adds an important detail for high-consequence blockers: name who can authorize the next step and who must be consulted.

My third perspective: an escalation path is also a statement of purpose. It tells people what the team is trying to protect when the usual route no longer fits. Naming a decision-maker helps, but the person reading the guide should also be able to understand why work pauses—and what can safely happen while they wait.

Try a short scenario rehearsal: give a user a realistic blocker, then ask them to explain what they would do, who decides, and what the pause protects. If they can find the contact but cannot explain the boundary, the guide may need to say more than “ask for help.”