Per-verified-human rate limits
A submission portal that checks a per-person counter against a verified identity before accepting a new application, showing the citizen how many submissions remain in the current period.
When AI tools reduce the marginal cost of producing applications, submissions, or requests to near zero, systems designed for human-effort-constrained throughput are overwhelmed. Traditional throttling mechanisms (IP-based rate limits, CAPTCHAs) cannot distinguish between a human who files one high-quality application and an agent that files forty on behalf of the same person.
Government needs submission volume to reflect distinct people rather than agent throughput, so that a count of applications, objections, or requests measures genuine demand and not how many an agent filed on one person's behalf.
Caps must be calibrated against legitimate need distributions, with exemption pathways for documented circumstances (e.g. multiple concurrent eligibility categories). Caps must never apply to appeals or complaints, where limiting access to redress raises natural justice concerns.
A quota meter bound to the citizen's verified identity, rather than to a device or session, that shows how many submissions remain in the current period, with a visible 'request an exemption' link for documented circumstances.
No surface has been built yet; the approach above is the brief for one.
Emerging
The NIH cap is directly transferable to government digital services where per-person submission volume matters: planning objections, freedom-of-information requests, public consultation responses, grant or subsidy applications. The key design variables are:
- Identity binding: Caps require verified identity to prevent circumvention via multiple accounts. Government digital identity infrastructure (e.g. Australia's myGovID, UK's GOV.UK One Login) provides a foundation.
- Threshold calibration: The NIH cap at six per year affects only 1.3% of applicants, preserving access for legitimate heavy users while curtailing outliers. Calibrating thresholds requires empirical analysis of pre-AI submission distributions.
- Equity considerations: Caps may disadvantage people who are prolific for legitimate reasons. Government equivalents must consider whether caps inadvertently penalize vulnerable groups with more frequent legitimate needs (e.g. people with multiple disabilities applying across programs).
A per-human cap is a volume-control mechanism, not an adjudication shortcut. The failure to avoid is throttling the very redress channel that surfaces wrongful decisions, which is why appeals and complaints must be exempt from the cap.