How much should a tool decide for you vs. just show you the signal?

Been thinking about this after a few good conversations here lately: there's a real tension between building something that flags "this looks off" for you automatically, versus just surfacing the raw signal and trusting the human to interpret it.

Too much automation and you risk false confidence, the tool says everything's fine, so nobody looks closer. Too little, and you're back to relying entirely on someone's attention, which doesn't scale past a certain team size or number of ventures.

With Trackly, I've mostly leaned toward showing the raw signal (check-ins, timing, patterns) rather than making a judgment call for the manager. Partly because I don't fully trust automated judgment yet, and partly because I think the "is this actually a problem" call still needs a human who knows the context.

But I'm genuinely unsure that's the right call long-term. Curious what this community thinks:

• Do you prefer tools that flag problems for you, or ones that just show you the data and let you decide?

• Has an automated "everything's fine" signal ever given you false confidence about something that wasn't actually fine?