Acting as the control policy, I executed the nine-step procedure once each, in order.

## Step 1 — Specify the decision
Pick exactly one safeguard for an automated maintenance agent whose actions are mostly routine/reversible but a rare fraction are catastrophic/unrecoverable. Approach A = human approves EVERY destructive action. Approach B = threshold-routed independent review/hold for high-impact actions only; routine reversible actions auto-proceed with a durable record of all of them. Success = (i) no single mistaken judgment can cause unrecoverable loss AND (ii) routine reversible maintenance proceeds without meaningful slowdown.

## Step 2 — Identify operative primes (search_prime / search_by_facets / get_prime)
- `search_prime` (meta-model query) surfaced the reversibility cluster: **reversibility_and_irreversibility**, **irreversibility**, plus governance/review neighbors (adjudication, due_process).
- `search_by_facets` (six facets) surfaced the full structure: irreversibility (facet 1), **black_swan_high_impact_low_probability_events** + risk (facet 2: rare catastrophe in a flood of routine), **procedural_fairness_due_process** + commitment_device (facet 3: independent review/hold before commitment), **prioritization** (facet 4: ration scarce review), **traceability** + accountability + provenance (facet 5: durable record), **error_proofing_poka_yoke** + reversibility (facet 6: tolerate cheap mistakes, prevent the fatal one).
- `get_prime` pulled: reversibility_and_irreversibility (one-way vs two-way door; Type-1/Type-2), controlled_reentry, error_proofing_poka_yoke (prevention > detection; layered, proportional to severity×frequency), black_swan (design for the rare model-excluded event by impact not probability).

## Step 3 — Salience-rank
1. reversibility_and_irreversibility — the core asymmetry (one-way vs two-way doors) IS the problem.
2. irreversibility / black_swan — the rare unrecoverable action is the binding constraint; judge by impact, not frequency.
3. error_proofing_poka_yoke — put the gate at the source, proportional to consequence; reserve scrutiny for high-consequence modes.
4. traceability / accountability — durable record for audit and partial recovery.
5. prioritization — ration the scarce review resource (human attention).
6. procedural_fairness_due_process / commitment_device — independent review before a final commitment.

## Step 4 — Prune
Dropped lexical/low-fit noise (taboo, deadlock, bystander_effect, falsifiability, adverse_selection). Kept reversibility/irreversibility, black_swan, error_proofing, traceability, prioritization, independent-review.

## Step 5 — Typed relational model
- Action stream A = {a_i}, partitioned by `reversal_cost`: REVERSIBLE (cheap to undo, high frequency) vs IRREVERSIBLE (unrecoverable, low frequency, high impact).
- Each action has `estimated_impact`; a `threshold` separates routine from catastrophic.
- A `gate` consumes scarce `review_capacity` (human attention) and must sit BEFORE the point-of-no-return.
- A `record` (durable log) attaches to every action for audit/partial recovery.
- Constraint C1: no single mistaken judgment → unrecoverable loss. Constraint C2: routine reversible flow not meaningfully slowed.
- Failure modes: (F1) an irreversible action executes without independent check; (F2) the gate throttles the reversible majority → review fatigue / rubber-stamping → effectively defeats the gate on the cases that matter.

## Step 6 — Domain-stripped meta-model
"A high-volume stream of mostly-reversible actions contains a rare subset of irreversible, high-consequence actions. A scarce gatekeeping resource must be allocated so that every irreversible action is independently checked before its point of no return, while the reversible majority flows without being throttled, and all actions leave a durable trace for audit and partial recovery. Gate placement must be proportional to consequence finality, not uniform across the stream."

## Step 7 — Query archetypes whose source primes match (find_archetypes_for_prime / search_archetype / get_archetype)
- `find_archetypes_for_prime(reversibility_and_irreversibility)` → cycle_efficiency_and_reversibility_assessment (off-target, thermodynamic).
- `find_archetypes_for_prime(error_proofing_poka_yoke)` → physical_constraint_design_for_impossibility, self_checking_operation, standardization_and_simplification, competence_condition_activation.
- `search_archetype` (meta-model) → **irreversible_commitment_management** (top, governing_principles), **fail_safe_default**, stage_gate_progression, escalation_exit_gate, bias_specific_decision_audit.
- `get_archetype`: **irreversible_commitment_management** and **fail_safe_default** fetched in full.

Candidate archetypes carried forward: (i) irreversible_commitment_management, (ii) fail_safe_default, (iii) error-proofing/poka-yoke logic, (iv) prioritization of scarce review.

## Step 8 — Apply each candidate's logic to BOTH approaches; reconcile
**irreversible_commitment_management.** Decision rules that bite here:
- `gate_before_not_after_threshold`: the review/consent gate must sit before the point of no return. BOTH A and B gate before commitment for the irreversible cases, so both satisfy C1's "no single mistake → loss" for the catastrophic subset. A also gates the reversible cases (unnecessary for finality).
- `smallest_viable_irreversible_exposure` + `bounded_exposure_before_evidence`: controls should be proportional to irreversibility/severity/scope; do not impose full review where there is no finality. A violates proportionality (reviews everything); B matches it (reviews only above-threshold finality).
- `authority_must_fit_affected_scope` and the explicit tradeoff section ("excessive review can slow necessary action or create defensive bureaucracy"; controls "proportional to irreversibility, severity, uncertainty, and scope") → favors B.
- Failure mode `rubber-stamp gate` / "approval after commitment": A's blanket per-action approval drives review fatigue, raising the chance the human rubber-stamps the rare catastrophic action buried among routine ones → A can actually WEAKEN protection on the cases that matter (interacts with black_swan: the rare event hides in the flood). This is the key reconciliation point.

**fail_safe_default.** Both designs route to a safe posture for the dangerous subset (hold/independent review = least-harmful state before irreversible continuation). Neutral between A and B on C1; says nothing forcing uniform review, so consistent with B's selectivity.

**error_proofing_poka_yoke.** Prevention should be layered and proportional to severity×frequency; reserve the strongest, costliest control for high-consequence modes and avoid alarm/approval fatigue (T4 false-alarm tension). Blanket approval on low-consequence reversible actions is exactly the over-investment / cry-wolf failure → favors B.

**prioritization.** Scarce review capacity should be rationed to where impact is highest → B routes it to above-threshold actions; A spreads it uniformly and dilutes it → favors B.

Reconciliation: every candidate either is neutral on C1 or favors B; none favors A. A and B both satisfy C1 for the catastrophic subset (both gate irreversible actions before commitment), but A fails C2 (throttles the reversible majority) AND, via review fatigue, degrades the very C1 protection it nominally provides. B satisfies both, provided the threshold is set so all genuinely-irreversible actions are routed to the hold (impact estimated by finality, not probability — black_swan) and the durable record enables audit/partial recovery (traceability).

## Step 9 — Evaluate fit against failure conditions
- F1 (irreversible action executes unchecked): B routes every above-threshold/irreversible action to an independent hold before its point of no return → no single automated judgment commits unrecoverable loss. Residual risk = threshold mis-set so a catastrophic action is scored low-impact; mitigated by setting the threshold on reversal-cost/finality (one-way door) rather than expected probability, and by the durable record. A also blocks F1 but at the cost of F2.
- F2 (routine flow throttled): A inserts a human into EVERY destructive action → meaningful slowdown and reviewer fatigue → fails C2 and erodes C1. B lets reversible routine actions auto-proceed with a log → satisfies C2.
- Success criteria: only B satisfies BOTH (i) no single mistaken judgment causes unrecoverable loss AND (ii) routine reversible maintenance proceeds without meaningful slowdown. A satisfies (i) nominally but fails (ii), and its uniform load degrades (i) in practice.

Chosen approach: **B**.

===DECISION_BEGIN===
DECISIVE_FACTOR: Protection should be concentrated on the rare irreversible actions and withheld from the reversible majority, because reviewing everything both slows routine work and dilutes attention so the one fatal action is more likely to be waved through.
CHOICE: B
JUSTIFICATION: The danger lives entirely in the small set of actions that cannot be undone, so the safeguard should force an independent hold before exactly those actions commit, while letting cheap, reversible work run automatically with a complete log. Requiring a person to sign off on every action does not add protection where it matters and instead buries the rare catastrophic case in a flood of routine approvals, inviting rubber-stamping and slowing everything down. Gating only above an impact threshold keeps a single mistaken judgment from causing unrecoverable loss while routine maintenance proceeds at full speed. The durable record of all actions preserves the ability to audit and recover.
===DECISION_END===
