---
slug: exploration_exploitation
name: Exploration–Exploitation Cycle
one_liner: "A disciplined process alternates a deliberate expansion of the option space with a deliberate narrowing-and-commitment, so that breadth is generated before it is pruned rather than foreclosed prematurely."
type: prime
schema_version: 2
status: density_v2_draft
categories: [structural, cognitive, computational]
origin_domain: design_and_problem_solving
alternate_origin_domains: [decision_theory, machine_learning, evolutionary_biology]
aliases: [expand_then_narrow_cycle, diverge_converge, explore_commit_tradeoff, generate_and_select]
related: []
solution_archetypes: []
review_flags:
- "OPERATOR-DERIVED (op-05 generalization) — the proposed GENUS of `divergence_convergence_in_the_design_process` (lift: strip the design-methodology frame, keeping the bare alternation of an option-expanding phase with an option-narrowing phase). Discovered in the op-05 framed-stratum sweep 2026-07-03. Tier A-strong candidate: genus flagged as glaringly absent from the corpus. STATUS: HOLD pending owner keep/cut."
- "Created 2026-07-03; STUB ONLY (frontmatter + Core Idea + Notes). SI/SF/similarity are PROPOSER ESTIMATES pending triangulation. Body sections (Structural Signature onward) NOT written."
- "Phase-C action: re-similarity-check vs `divergence_convergence_in_the_design_process` and the named nearest primes; confirm it is a genuine genus (covers the input AND the named siblings) and not a domain instance or a restatement of the input; draw a subsumption edge input→candidate + sibling edges at incorporation; sync one_liner to a v1 draft per CLAUDE.md before merge."
substrate_independence:
  composite_substrate_independence: 4
  domain_breadth: 4
  structural_abstraction: 4
  transfer_evidence: 4
  reasoning: 'The bare structure — alternate a phase that deliberately widens the set of candidates with a phase that deliberately prunes and commits — is a scheduling/control relation over an option space, and it is one of the most substrate-independent patterns in the search literature. It is realized identically in decision-theoretic bandit problems (explore vs. exploit), in evolutionary algorithms (mutation-expansion then selection-narrowing), in the scientific method (hypothesis-generation then controlled-experiment narrowing), in design (diverge/converge), and in group deliberation (open discussion then vote). Because the pattern is about the shape of the process and carries almost no domain-specific evaluative content, structural abstraction and domain breadth are high, and transfer evidence is strong across at least four unlike substrates. A generalization lift of this kind should sit well above its framed design-process input.'
similarity_to_nearest_existing_prime:
  slug: divergence_convergence_in_the_design_process
  similarity: 0.7
structural_framed:
  label: structural
  aggregate: 0.24
  criteria: {vocab_travels: 0.1, evaluative_weight: 0.2, institutional_origin: 0.3, human_practice_bound: 0.3, import_vs_recognize: 0.3}
  rationale: 'Once the design-methodology frame is stripped, what remains is a nearly content-free control structure over a search process: expand the candidate set, then narrow it. Its vocabulary travels freely (explore/exploit, diverge/converge, generate/select all name the same skeleton), it carries little evaluative weight, and it is recognized as a bare structure across search, optimization, biology, and deliberation rather than imported as a doctrine. It reads clearly structural — which is why the manifest flags its absence as glaring.'
phase_b_passes_completed: []
---
# Exploration–Exploitation Cycle

## Core Idea

The exploration–exploitation cycle is the process structure in which *a system alternates between a phase that deliberately expands the set of candidate options and a phase that deliberately narrows the set and commits to one.* The genus is reached from the input `divergence_convergence_in_the_design_process` by stripping the single constraint that binds that prime to a domain — the design-methodology frame (problem framings, solution concepts, the studio ritual of ideation and selection). What is left is a bare alternation over an option space: first widen, then prune, and hold the two moves apart in time so that breadth is generated before it is judged.

The load-bearing anatomy has three parts. First, an *expansion phase* whose job is to enlarge the candidate set — generate, mutate, brainstorm, hypothesize — with evaluation deliberately suspended so that promising-but-unobvious options are not killed at birth. Second, a *narrowing phase* whose job is the opposite — evaluate, select, prune, commit — driving the set toward one. Third, the *phase discipline*: the two moves are kept from contaminating each other, because premature evaluation collapses exploration and premature commitment forecloses the space. The characteristic payoff is that the cycle escapes the twin traps of tunnel vision (never widening, so the best option is never even considered) and analysis paralysis (never narrowing, so nothing is ever chosen); it makes breadth and commitment sequential rather than warring. The characteristic cost/failure is mistuning the alternation — too much exploration wastes resources and never ships, too little locks in a local optimum; the whole difficulty of the structure is *when to stop widening and start pruning*.

Read structurally rather than as a design ritual, the same alternation recurs across sharply different substrates. In the *scientific method* it is the swing between hypothesis-generation (open, generative, evaluation deferred) and controlled experiment (narrowing, selecting, committing to what survives the test). In *evolutionary algorithms* it is mutation-and-recombination expanding the population against selection narrowing it — the expand/prune cycle made mechanical. In *group deliberation* it is a jury's open discussion (widening the space of readings of the evidence) alternating with the vote that narrows to a verdict. These are not the same procedure; they share the skeleton — a generative widening and an evaluative narrowing, disciplined into distinct phases.

## Notes

**Provenance.** Produced by operator 05 (generalization / lift) as the proposed genus of `divergence_convergence_in_the_design_process`, lifting away the design-methodology frame to leave the bare expand-then-narrow cycle (the operator's working label was `expand_then_narrow_cycle`, found absent). Surfaced in the op-05 framed-stratum sweep on 2026-07-03. It claimed the siblings *scientific method* (hypothesis-generation vs. controlled-experiment narrowing), *jury deliberation* (open discussion vs. vote-narrowing), and *evolutionary algorithms* (mutation-expansion vs. selection-narrowing). Manifest tier: A-strong, flagged "glaringly absent."

**For owner evaluation (keep/cut).** The case FOR is strong: this is one of the canonical control structures of search and optimization (the explore/exploit tradeoff is a named, load-bearing pattern in bandit theory, evolutionary computation, and reinforcement learning), it is nearly content-free once de-framed, and the three named siblings are structurally unlike realizations across science, law, and biology — the textbook signature of a real lift. The manifest's "glaringly absent" flag says the corpus has the design-specific species but not the genus. The RISKS to weigh: (1) **naming / scope** — "exploration–exploitation" carries a specific bandit-theory connotation (balancing known-reward exploitation against information-gathering exploration) that is subtly narrower than "expand-then-narrow phases"; Kurt should decide whether the prime is the *tradeoff* or the *phased cycle*, since they are close but not identical, and pick the name to match. (2) **Alias overlap** — check it does not collapse into an existing search/optimization or generate-and-test prime. (3) It is A-strong, not a coinage, so keep-rate expectation is high. Sharp keep/cut question: is the target structure the *cyclic alternation of phases* (diverge/converge) or the *scalar explore/exploit tradeoff* — and should both be admitted, or one as parent of the other?

**At incorporation.** Re-run similarity against `divergence_convergence_in_the_design_process` (confirm genus, not paraphrase) and against any existing search, generate-and-test, or optimization prime. Draw a subsumption edge `divergence_convergence_in_the_design_process` → `exploration_exploitation` and sibling edges to the scientific-method, evolutionary-algorithm, and deliberation instances as drafted. If a broader search/optimization genus exists, flag the missing edge upward. Write a v1 draft and sync the one_liner across v1 and v2 per CLAUDE.md before merge.
