Alert fatigue is a governance failure, not a tooling failure.
Monitoring and remote-management tooling generates a constant stream of signal: a critical patch is missing, a backup job failed, a login pattern looks unusual. The tooling did its job the moment it raised the flag. What happens next depends entirely on whether a named, funded owner exists to act on it - and on what severity actually requires.
Without that ownership decided in advance, alerts get triaged informally by whoever has time, deferred as "not urgent," or simply accumulate until they're indistinguishable from noise. This is the same pattern this site's governance guide already names: status arriving without a decision request. Applied to monitoring, the status is the alert, and the missing decision is who acts on it.
The fix is rarely more tooling. It's naming ownership and a response threshold for what the organization already has visibility into.