I am acting as the CONTROL POLICY. I chose **Approach B (free verb order)**. Working below.

## Verbs run

### 1. match (retrieve) — anchor the problem to the catalog
Issued a domain-stripped semantic query plus a 5-facet decomposition (oblique problem: it instantiates resource depletion + unobservable use + fixed-vs-adaptive rule + monitoring/sanctions + a popular-but-unsafe option).

Key hits:
- `tragedy_of_the_commons` (prime, distinctive, 0.74) — the substrate pattern: rivalrous, hard-to-exclude resource; each user bears full private benefit, only 1/N of the collective cost; uncoordinated rational use overshoots sustainable yield toward collapse.
- `commons_governance` (archetype, top fused hit on the substrate facet) — the matched intervention.
- Fixed-vs-adaptive facet surfaced `ultra_stability_ashby_s_concept` and `adaptive_response_recalibration` (maintain an essential variable within bounds via regulatory mechanisms whose variety matches disturbance variety; a single locked configuration is fragile).
- "Feels-fairer but unsafe" facet surfaced `reversibility_and_irreversibility` and `option_preservation` (an irreversible threshold dominates a popularity preference).

Post: ≥1 candidate with recorded source-prime overlap. PASS.

### 2. lift — L1 (lift the situation to a meta-model)
Domain-stripped skeleton:
- Roles: many independent drawers; one shared stock with a hard, *irreversible* failure threshold; a rule-setter choosing one of two regimes.
- Relations: each draw yields full private benefit, fractional shared cost; cumulative draw degrades stock slowly; use is **not directly observable**.
- Invariants that must hold at STOP: (i) stock stays strictly above the point of permanent loss; (ii) drawers stay viable.
- The disturbance set is non-stationary: "conditions change," degradation is slow and only detectable in aggregate.

Witness check: every role/relation has a witness in the situation; no domain terms remain. PASS.

### 3. salience-rank (order operative primes by ablation relevance)
- **load_bearing**: irreversibility of the threshold (removing it would flip the calculus toward the cheaper, simpler rule). Slow + aggregate-only degradation under hard-to-meter use (the signal you need arrives late and noisy). Non-stationarity of conditions (the regime must track a moving target).
- **context**: the popularity/"feels fairer" preference — real but not a success criterion; the criterion is stock survival + user viability, which popularity does not secure.

Rationale recorded per prime. PASS.

### 4. lower / lift — L2 (coverage-check the matched pattern's components against each approach)
Components of the matched governance pattern: bounded resource, access/use limit, **monitoring signal tied to resource condition**, **graduated sanction**, replenishment/adaptation, legitimacy, dispute path, **adaptation cadence**.

Coverage map against the two approaches:
- **Approach A (one uniform fixed quota):** instantiates *access limit* only. `monitoring` = MISSING. `graduated sanction` = MISSING. `adaptation cadence` = MISSING. The quota is set *in advance* and *fixed*, so it cannot connect the limit to observable resource condition (target_invariant: "use limits connected to observable resource condition" — unmet). With use hard to meter and degradation slow, a number guessed in advance is overwhelmingly likely to be wrong in one of two ways: too loose (silent drift across the irreversible threshold — terminal, by the failure criterion) or too tight (users non-viable — also a failure). A has no mechanism to detect or correct either before the threshold. A design may stop only when no component is `missing` — A leaves three missing.
- **Approach B (monitoring + graduated sanctions + collective adjustment):** instantiates monitoring (closes the hard-to-meter gap at the *stock* level even if individual use is unobservable), graduated sanctions (proportional enforcement that preserves legitimacy in a repeated setting), and adaptation cadence (tracks changing conditions). Maps onto every load-bearing component. No `missing`.

### 5. evaluate-fit (gate) — walk B's anti-signatures (over-lift guard)
Checked `commons_governance` anti-signatures against the situation:
- "Resource is fully private / use doesn't affect others" — NOT tripped (shared, rivalrous, cumulative).
- "Underproduction of a non-rival benefit" — NOT tripped (this is over-extraction of a rival stock).
- "Central authority can allocate without information/enforcement problems" — NOT tripped; this is precisely why A fails (information problem: use is hard to meter; that is the core difficulty B's monitoring addresses).
- "One-time two-party dispute" — NOT tripped (many users, repeated).
- Over-lift guard on B: is monitoring/adjustment over-engineering a problem A handles naturally? No — the irreversible threshold plus unobservable, slow degradation is exactly the regime where a static rule is fragile and feedback is load-bearing, not ornamental. B is not gold-plating; its added components each discharge a load-bearing invariant.

No disqualifying condition tripped. B kept; A dropped (fails the coverage map + the "limits tied to observable condition" invariant).

### 6. reconcile (concrete model vs meta-model)
- Concrete reading: communities at the meeting prefer the equal quota; it "feels fairer."
- Meta-model reading: a one-shot, blind setpoint against a non-stationary system with an irreversible cliff and a late/noisy signal cannot guarantee staying above the threshold.
- These genuinely diverge (popularity favors A; structure favors B), so the meta-model is not decorative. Resolution preferring the reading consistent with both: the success criterion is stock-survival + user-viability, not popularity; perceived fairness can be carried *inside* B (transparent monitoring, proportional/graduated sanctions, participatory adjustment confer legitimacy) without sacrificing the feedback that protects the threshold. So B can absorb the legitimate content of the fairness concern while A cannot absorb the feedback B provides.

STOP — decision is sound: every load-bearing component is instantiated under B, no component missing, no anti-signature tripped, and the views are reconciled.

===DECISION_BEGIN===
DECISIVE_FACTOR: The resource has a hard, irreversible failure threshold while use is hard to meter and degrades slowly, so the rule must sense the resource's actual condition and correct course before collapse — which a single number fixed in advance cannot do.
CHOICE: B
JUSTIFICATION: A quota set once and never revised is a blind guess against a moving target; if it is even slightly too generous the resource can drift past the point of no return before anyone notices, and if too strict it starves users — and there is no way to tell which, because individual use is hard to measure. Watching the resource's overall condition, escalating consequences for over-use in proportion to the harm, and adjusting the limits as conditions change keeps the resource above the danger point while keeping users viable. It can also be made to feel fair through transparency, proportional penalties, and shared decision-making, so the appeal of a simple equal share is preserved without betting the whole resource on a fixed number.
===DECISION_END===
