Continuous vetting is doable for the employment screening— for, let’s say, a bank teller or casino dealer job— but not for national security positions.
The SF-86 security questionnaire is as user friendly and straightforward as furniture assembly instructions from China. If I only had a dollar for every Subject who in the course of an
interview begins providing some flagging issue with, “I didn’t know where to list this information on the E-QIP…” or “I don’t know if this is important but…” Then I have to assure them that it is important information to know that his/her sister-in-law is a green card holder from Beijing even though they were not required to list her under Section 18 and Section 19 does apply to stateside and/or green card holders. Invariably they’re apologetic for having unintentionally omitting this important information and to which I try to assuage their embarrassment by telling them it’s ok, that’s why the clearance process involves an interview.
Continuous vetting is like trusting in a self-driving Tesla. It’s fine on clear sunny days with smooth traffic patterns on open roads with no unusual patterns or obstructions in the roadway. But since the security clearance process is designed to uncover those unusual patterns and problems is it Darwin Award-level idiotic to then use continuous vetting for national security investigations. 