If you stop reviewing corrections, the system’s accuracy stagnates at whatever level it reached when you last corrected it. It does not produce worse output in an absolute sense — but it also does not improve, and over time it falls progressively further behind your actual judgment as market conditions, your ICP, and your service mix evolve.
This is not a theoretical concern. It is the most common reason a Vantage engagement underdelivers. The technology works. The model is capable. But the correction cadence is the fuel. Without it, the engine runs on fumes.
What the system looks like after 60 days of no corrections
After 60 days with no corrections:
- The scores remain consistent.
- The system runs its pipeline as usual.
- The output reflects the state of your judgment from 60 days ago, not today.
If you changed your target ICP, acquired a new service line, or started prioritizing a different industry, none of that is reflected in the model’s behavior.
For most clients, 60 days of drift is noticeable but recoverable. After 90 days, the correction queue to recalibrate gets long enough that it typically requires a dedicated catch-up session rather than a normal weekly review.
The formal kill criteria
If corrections fall below a minimum threshold for a sustained period and accuracy drops below 60%, the engagement enters review.
Fulcrum does not continue billing for an engagement that is not working. The kill criteria exist partly to protect you from paying for output you are not reviewing.
What to do if you fall behind
If you fall behind on corrections:
- Tell Fulcrum.
- A catch-up session can be structured so it’s less disruptive than trying to review 6 weeks of backlog in one sitting.
- The system is designed to recover; the correction backlog is not permanent.
---
Connected questions:
- What are the kill criteria?
- What is the correction cadence and why does it matter?
- How much time does reviewing corrections actually take?
Related: The kill criteria · The correction cadence · How long corrections take