Common Failure Modes
Unit ID: PAW-M11-U00 Estimated active time: 15-20 minutes
Failures repeat
AI-assisted work fails in a small number of recognisable ways. Knowing the list means you can design against it rather than being surprised each time.
This module names the failures; the guards go into the workflow you mapped in Module 10.
The list
FAILURE MODES
Failure Looks like Guard
---------------------- --------------------------- ---------------------
invented fact a confident specific detail bound the source
false confidence no hedging where hedging require [UNCERTAIN]
is due marking
missing context a generically correct answer context package
that does not fit
silent assumption a load-bearing choice you require an assumptions
did not make section
dropped caveat a hedge became a claim on PRESERVE EXACTLY
revision
bias in framing one group described in viewpoint sweep
different terms
privacy leak sensitive text in a prompt privacy gate before
generation
over-reliance nobody actually checked named reviewer and
record
They cluster by task family
Research tasks fail by invention. Writing tasks fail by drift. Analysis tasks fail by generic filler. Teaching tasks fail by confident error in unfamiliar material.
That is why the patterns in Module 9 each carry a "known failure" line — the guard is family-specific.
The dangerous ones are the quiet ones
An output that is obviously wrong costs nothing; you reject it.
The expensive failures are the ones that read well: a plausible figure, a smoothed caveat, a reasonable-sounding cause. Those pass review unless the review is looking for them specifically.
Design against the top two
You cannot guard against everything on every task. Pick the two most likely for the family you are working in and build those guards into the pattern.
The others go in the review checklist for high-consequence work only.
Mini practice
Take your three most frequent AI tasks.
For each, name the two most likely failure modes from the table.
Check whether your current prompt has the matching guard.
