<?xml version="1.0" encoding="utf-8" standalone="yes"?>
<rss version="2.0" xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom" xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/">
  <channel>
    <title>Detection on Loop &amp; Retry</title>
    <link>https://loopandretry.github.io/tags/detection/</link>
    <description>Recent content in Detection on Loop &amp; Retry</description>
    
    <generator>Hugo</generator>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <lastBuildDate>Mon, 17 Aug 2026 21:00:00 -0700</lastBuildDate>
    <atom:link href="https://loopandretry.github.io/tags/detection/index.xml" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
    <item>
      <title>The cost of finding a failure after the customer finds it</title>
      <link>https://loopandretry.github.io/posts/cost-of-late-failure-detection/</link>
      <pubDate>Mon, 17 Aug 2026 21:00:00 -0700</pubDate>
      <guid>https://loopandretry.github.io/posts/cost-of-late-failure-detection/</guid>
      <description>An agent&amp;rsquo;s failure isn&amp;rsquo;t expensive because it failed—it&amp;rsquo;s expensive because you found out about it from a customer complaint instead of an alert. Detection latency multiplies the cleanup cost by an order of magnitude. This post explores the arithmetic of failure-finding, why automated detection is worth the infrastructure cost, and how to choose detection strategies.</description>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>
