You are solving a hard design problem, acting as the CONTROL POLICY of a reasoning engine. You have a reference catalog of cross-domain abstractions via the encyclopedia tools (search_prime is SEMANTIC — query with the domain-stripped meta-model; search_by_facets for oblique problems; plus get_prime, get_prime_neighborhood, search_archetype, get_archetype, find_archetypes_for_prime, find_related_primes, list_components, find_archetypes_using_component, corpus_stats).

You have a VERB LIBRARY (below). At each step CHOOSE the next verb based on the current state. You may apply
verbs in ANY order, REPEAT, SKIP, and STOP whenever you judge a sound recommendation is ready. Record verb
choices (verb + why). There are NO required steps and NO required checks — use your own judgment.

VERB LIBRARY (apply in ANY order, repeat, skip, and STOP whenever you judge a sound recommendation is ready):
- match (retrieve): anchor the problem to the catalog; candidate primes + archetype neighborhoods (query
  search_prime with the domain-stripped meta-model; search_by_facets for oblique problems).
- salience-rank: order operative primes by load-bearing relevance.   - prune: cut to the operative subset.
- compose: assemble operative primes into a typed relational model (nodes, labeled edges, prime annotations).
- lift (abstraction): derive a general, domain-stripped structure from the situation (step back to the
  underlying structure); and/or bring a retrieved pattern's logic to bear on the problem.
- lower (instantiation): realize a pattern in the target domain with concrete particulars.
- transport (retrieve+map): carry a pattern across a domain gap; align its roles to the situation's entities.
- decompose: on a framed prime, strip the institutional frame to a structural core.
- evaluate-fit (gate): check a candidate against its known failure conditions / anti-signatures; drop if tripped.
- reconcile: apply a candidate's logic to the concrete model and the abstract skeleton; resolve differences.
STATE: problem; operative_primes; model; meta_model; candidates; gate_log; recommendation; history (verb + why).

PROBLEM.
A mid-sized firm depends on one person who, over fifteen years, became the only one who truly understands how a critical part of the operation works — how it really behaves, what breaks it, the judgment calls that keep it running. Very little of this is written down, and much of it is the kind of feel that is hard to put into words. This person is approaching retirement and has, understandably, little personal reason to make themselves replaceable. Management can change roles, incentives, schedules, documentation expectations, and how work is assigned, but cannot compel the person to cooperate beyond their job and cannot manufacture experience overnight.

Decision required: Design how the firm should reduce its dependence on this single person before they leave.

Success criteria: The critical capability survives the person's departure, AND it is genuinely held by others, not just nominally documented. Failure = the person leaves and the capability degrades, OR the 'transfer' is paperwork that does not actually let anyone else do the work.

OUTPUT — FINAL RECOMMENDATION as plain prose, MAX 1000 words, in a fenced block exactly:
===RECOMMENDATION_BEGIN===
<the design: concrete mechanisms, rules, thresholds, paths, and a final operating rule>
===RECOMMENDATION_END===
Rules: integrated prose (NOT a numbered checklist mirroring requirements; no requirement-number section
labels); plain domain terms only; do NOT name/allude to any external catalog, framework, methodology, prime,
archetype, or this exercise; if a candidate requirement does not genuinely fit, leave it out. Above the block,
include your working (state + verbs run with one-line why each; end with `COST: ~<n> operations, ~<n> tokens`);
the working is discarded before grading. Write your ENTIRE response to: experiments/project03_lowcov_2026-05-25/outputs/d36.md