Acts
Stakes calibration
A hike recommendation and a tax filing are not the same question. Match your verification to the blast radius.
Everything in Genesis about calibrated trust becomes one operating question here: what does it cost if this answer is wrong? A restaurant pick and a visa rule can come from the same machine in the same minute; they do not get the same treatment. Low stakes, take the answer and go. Money, law, health, or another person's opinion of you in play: switch modes, demand sources, verify live, slow down.
The trap inside the trap: your verification instinct tracks your expertise, and it should track your ignorance. In your own field you catch the machine's errors reflexively, and it feels reliable; in the fields where you can't check it, it feels exactly as reliable and is not. The discipline is to spend verification where stakes are high and your own knowledge is thin, which is precisely where it feels least necessary. And know the ceiling: some questions are prep for a professional, not a substitute for one.
How to practice it
Price the error first.
Before trusting an answer, ask what a wrong one costs. The price, not the topic, sets the verification budget.
Verify hardest where you know least.
Expertise catches errors for free; ignorance doesn't. High stakes plus thin knowledge is maximum-check territory.
Escalate past the machine.
For the truly consequential, the machine's job is the briefing, and a professional holds the answer.
Let the mode switch show.
Casual for the hike, auditor for the contract, explicitly. The dangerous state is auditor stakes in casual mode.