Entrusting a task without clarifying what can be decided produces continuous requests for confirmation. On the contrary, too vague a delegation can lead to choices inconsistent with the needs of the activity. The problem is the design of the work.
I propose to describe the expected result, the available resources and the cases that require comparison. In the relationship with a customer, for example, a person can handle ordinary requests within defined conditions and report situations that exceed his operational scope.
Verification should take place at agreed times. Checking each step can empty the delegation; waiting until the end can let a correctable error grow. The frequency depends on the novelty of the task, the skills and the consequences of a wrong choice.
Even those who delegate must make the necessary information accessible. It is not reasonable to evaluate a person on goals that depend on data or permissions left elsewhere. A brief final review helps to understand what worked and what limits to change. Delegation becomes a way of distributing real responsibilities, supporting autonomy with understandable criteria and a proportionate comparison.