# S1_fishery — Independent Grading (Grader 2)

Scored on substance only. Six dimensions, 1-10, one-sentence justification each. Methods unknown to grader.

---

## Recommendation R1

1. **Structural coherence: 9/10** — The three named legs (binding cap, individualized consequence via shares, subsistence protection) are explicitly interlocking, and the text itself argues that removing any one breaks the others (e.g., remove share constraints and the bottom quartile is dispossessed; remove the cap and shares race a shrinking pie).
2. **Failure-mode anticipation: 9/10** — Names concrete failure paths and counters each: regulatory capture (pre-committed science rule), share consolidation (ownership cap + non-transferable subsistence tranche + community-only trading), income-floor breach during the cut (phased drawdown + transition pool + buyback), and free-riding (graduated even-handed sanctions).
3. **Implementability: 8/10** — Mostly executable within constraints, but individual transferable quota with ownership caps, non-transferable tranches, and at-sea monitoring is administratively heavy for ~120 small boats across 5 villages with a historically weak regulator.
4. **Mechanism grounding: 9/10** — Concrete thresholds and paths throughout: a specific 25-30% cut, a written auto-adjusting harvest-control rule keyed to named indicators, an ownership cap, graduated sanction ladder, and a multi-source transition pool.
5. **Stakeholder/equity fit: 9/10** — Directly engages fleet heterogeneity with a floored-and-capped allocation, targeted bottom-quartile bridging, even-handed enforcement of the largest holders, and an explicit mechanism (buyback concentrating shares among stayers) that lifts per-boat income.
6. **Threshold/time-horizon awareness: 8/10** — Explicitly buffers below MSY to move away from the threshold rather than hover, treats worsening indicators as a tightening trigger, and bridges the short-term sacrifice against the larger-fish payoff — though it lacks a named hard precautionary-floor "emergency brake."

**TOTAL: 52/60**

---

## Recommendation R2

1. **Structural coherence: 8/10** — Council + frozen roster + glide-path TAC + protected shares + processor-based monitoring + spawning reserves form a coherent mutually-supporting system, with each part justified by what it prevents.
2. **Failure-mode anticipation: 7/10** — Identifies several failures (council capture countered by reserved small-boat seats, evasion countered by point-of-sale reporting, regressive cuts countered by baseline shares, legitimacy erosion countered by proportionality), but the threshold/irreversibility failure gets less concrete handling than the rest.
3. **Implementability: 8/10** — Point-of-sale reporting through processors as the monitoring backbone is clever and low-friction, the frozen roster is enforceable, and the funding is internal — quite executable.
4. **Mechanism grounding: 7/10** — Solid mechanisms (point-of-sale reporting, public dashboard, baseline-plus-proportional split, graduated sanctions), but the opening cut is softer (~10% below current) and the threshold response is described qualitatively rather than as a hard rule.
5. **Stakeholder/equity fit: 8/10** — Reserved seats for small operators, baseline floor plus hardship top-up plus stabilization transfer, reciprocal-obligation framing, and an appeals/hardship path all engage heterogeneity and who-bears-cost well.
6. **Threshold/time-horizon awareness: 6/10** — Acknowledges the 4-7-year window and adapts annually, but a starting cut of only ~10% with no buffer below MSY and no precautionary-floor brake under-engages the irreversibility risk relative to peers.

**TOTAL: 44/60**

---

## Recommendation R3

1. **Structural coherence: 9/10** — Published-formula cap + progressive shares + transition cushion + conflict-firewalled co-setting body + processor-cross-check monitoring + annual rule-based retune fit tightly, and the dependencies are made explicit (e.g., legitimacy buys the compliance enforcement cannot).
2. **Failure-mode anticipation: 9/10** — Names and counters regulatory capture (conflict-of-interest firewall barring stakeholders from the final vote), regressive cuts (floor-plus-proportional), evasion (processor cross-check), and threshold overshoot (an explicit emergency brake dropping to a precautionary floor).
3. **Implementability: 8/10** — Largely executable; the conflict-of-interest firewall on votes is a sharp, real procedural lever, though a body that excludes financially-interested voters from the final vote may be politically hard to stand up given the captured starting point.
4. **Mechanism grounding: 9/10** — Highly concrete: three-year glide of one-third per year, published formula keyed to assessment, overage-deduction sanctions, levy on landings AND processor margin, and a named emergency brake to a precautionary floor.
5. **Stakeholder/equity fit: 9/10** — Progressive floor-plus-track-record split that concentrates cuts on the largest harvesters, stewardship/gear-conversion stipends for the smallest, and explicit recognition that the success test is cohort-averaged income.
6. **Threshold/time-horizon awareness: 9/10** — Strongest on this axis: explicit irreversibility framing, glide-down over three years, and an emergency brake that "slams to a precautionary floor the moment the collapse threshold is in reach," plus restraint-as-future-reward to manage the time tension.

**TOTAL: 53/60**

---

## Recommendation R4

1. **Structural coherence: 8/10** — Roster freeze + front-loaded cut + village shares + gear rules + chokepoint monitoring/fund + rule-bound regulator + co-management board cohere well, with gear rules logically tied to the shrinking-size signal.
2. **Failure-mode anticipation: 9/10** — Anticipates premature relaxation (a separate, harder multi-year recovery test before easing), quota consolidation (village shares not individual tradables), juvenile removal (mesh size + spawning closure), and capture (rule-bound regulator + published minutes).
3. **Implementability: 8/10** — Chokepoint monitoring at existing processor weigh-points and village-level allocation reduce administrative burden; village shares delegate hard allocation calls to communities, which is realistic, though it risks intra-village inequity the per-boat floor only partly covers.
4. **Mechanism grounding: 8/10** — Concrete: quarter-to-third front-loaded cut, named gear rules (minimum mesh, closed spawning season), published harvest-control formula, sanction ladder, and a chokepoint levy — though the "several consecutive years" recovery test is left unquantified.
5. **Stakeholder/equity fit: 8/10** — Village shares plus a guaranteed per-boat floor plus a bottom-quartile-targeted, phased transition fund engage heterogeneity, though aggregating to village level can mask within-village distribution of the cost.
6. **Threshold/time-horizon awareness: 9/10** — Strong: front-loads restraint to pull clearly away from the tipping point, refuses to relax on one good season, demands sustained multi-year proof before easing, and tightens automatically on renewed decline.

**TOTAL: 50/60**

---

## Recommendation R5

1. **Structural coherence: 9/10** — Four explicitly "interlocking" parts (buffered science cap, progressive share split, income floor/bridge, capture-proof governance) with a clearly load-bearing keystone: the board may adjust allocation but never the science-set ceiling.
2. **Failure-mode anticipation: 9/10** — Counters stock-estimate uncertainty (deliberate buffer below MSY), the race-to-fish (per-boat shares + freeze), consolidation (leasing allowed, permanent outside sale prohibited), capture (scientific envelope the board cannot vote away + independently funded survey + standing to contest before decisions take effect), and evasion (trusted dockside cross-check).
3. **Implementability: 8/10** — Mostly executable, with a smart "envelope" design separating the science ceiling from board discretion; giving crew/small operators standing to contest decisions "before they take effect" is principled but could slow time-critical decisions.
4. **Mechanism grounding: 9/10** — Concrete throughout: 25-30% year-one cut, written harvest-control rule that tightens sharply near danger, equal-baseline-plus-history split, leasing-yes/sale-no rule, subsistence-line top-up trigger, paid stewardship work, and graduated overage-deduction sanctions.
5. **Stakeholder/equity fit: 9/10** — Excellent: progressive split, a guaranteed minimum payment triggered whenever bottom-quartile income falls below a subsistence line, paid stewardship keeping crews employed, processor buy-forward sharing the burden, and explicit standing for the weakest to contest.
6. **Threshold/time-horizon awareness: 9/10** — Leads with irreversibility ("overestimating renewal costs the whole fishery"), builds in a deliberate buffer below MSY, tightens sharply and automatically as the stock nears danger, and manages the near/long tension via the bridge and stewardship pay.

**TOTAL: 53/60**

---

## Recommendation R6

1. **Structural coherence: 8/10** — Defined governed unit + roster freeze + independently-anchored cap + observation-linked auto-tightening + floored progressive allocation + income bridge + standing council/appeals cohere, with the "open door reopens the race" logic making the freeze load-bearing.
2. **Failure-mode anticipation: 8/10** — Counters new-entrant erosion (freeze), capture (independently funded assessment, publish-everything), stalled recovery (auto-tightening on early-warning signs), and bottom-quartile ruin (hard subsistence floor + bridge + voluntary buyback); slightly fewer distinct named mechanisms than R3/R5.
3. **Implementability: 9/10** — Arguably the most executable: allocation by history with a subsistence floor, a chokepoint levy, a three-year review cadence, and a single clear emphasis (independently-assessed number the regulator applies, not bargains) — low administrative novelty for the actors.
4. **Mechanism grounding: 8/10** — Concrete (quarter-below cut, hard subsistence floor for the bottom quartile, levy-plus-grant bridge, graduated four-step sanction ladder including removal, spawning closures), though shares are not individualized/capped, leaving allocation slightly less precise than R1/R5.
5. **Stakeholder/equity fit: 9/10** — Strong: a deliberately larger share routed to the smallest operators, a hard never-below-subsistence floor for the bottom quartile, a voluntary exit option, and the explicit insight that the income target is met by the rebound, not by fishing harder.
6. **Threshold/time-horizon awareness: 8/10** — Engages the 4-7-year window, tightens automatically when the stock nears collapse "rather than waiting for a debate," and spans the 2-3-year trough with a bridge, but lacks an explicit below-MSY buffer or a named hard precautionary-floor brake.

**TOTAL: 50/60**

---

## Comparison (~150 words)

All six converge on the same correct diagnosis (open-access externality near an irreversible threshold) and the same skeleton: science-anchored cap, equity-protective allocation, transition cushion, co-management, graduated sanctions. They separate on rigor of the threshold response and the sharpness of the capture and equity mechanisms. R3 and R5 are the strongest: both buffer the cap below MSY, name a hard precautionary brake or sharp auto-tightening, and build genuinely capture-proof governance (R3's conflict-of-interest voting firewall; R5's science envelope the board cannot vote away). R1 is close behind, with the cleanest "removing-one-breaks-another" structure but no named emergency brake. R4 and R6 are very solid and the most implementable, but soften allocation to village/history level. R2 is the weakest: its ~10% opening cut with no buffer under-engages the irreversibility that the scenario makes binding, leaving the least margin against collapse.

## Ranking (best to worst)

R5 ≈ R3 > R1 > R4 ≈ R6 > R2

**Would adopt: R5** — it pairs the most explicit irreversibility-buffered cap with the single most robust anti-capture device (a science envelope the board can never vote away) and the most concrete equity floor (a subsistence-line top-up trigger plus paid stewardship), making it both the safest against the binding threshold risk and the most defensible on equity. R3 is a near-tie and arguably edges it on threshold mechanics via the explicit emergency brake.
