# FC5 — Incentive approach decision (condition B, free verb library)

Acting as the control policy. I chose verbs freely (Approach B of the prompt's two run-styles: pick verbs in the order the problem demanded, stop when sound), and called the encyclopedia tools at each retrieval/gate step.

## Working (verbs run)

### 1. match (retrieve) — anchor the problem to the catalog
- `search_prime` with the domain-stripped meta-model ("a hard-to-observe true target is replaced by an easy-to-measure proxy; strong pressure on the proxy makes the proxy diverge from the true target").
- `search_by_facets` to decompose the oblique, multi-structure problem into its five structural aspects (measure-becomes-target; hidden-target-via-observable-proxy; strong-incentive-on-single-metric-induces-gaming; robustness-from-triangulating-many-signals; periodic-recalibration-over-time).

Candidates with recorded source-prime overlap:
- **performativity** — the deep structural core: a measure adopted as a *target* stops describing and starts *making* behavior; "a measure adopted as a target ceases to be a good measure precisely because announcing it reconfigures behavior" (its own text names the Goodhart-adjacent structure). load_bearing.
- **goal_congruence_alignment** — the organizational frame: Kerr's "folly of rewarding A while hoping for B"; agents "retreat to measurable local metrics abandoning harder-to-measure system contributions" under pressure; warns explicitly against "proxy metrics that are convenient." load_bearing.
- **observability / correlated_proxy_monitoring** (facet 2) — the proxy-inference structure: a hidden target inferred from observable signals; target-state primacy; drift. load_bearing for the *mechanics* of A.
- Context-only: signaling, observer_effect, winner's_curse, robustness, variability, wisdom_of_the_crowds (the multi-signal facet), time/recurrence/calibration (the recalibration facet).

### 2. salience-rank + prune — order by load-bearing relevance
Removing **performativity** would change the recommendation (it is what predicts B's hollowing-out), so load_bearing. Removing **goal_congruence_alignment** changes it too (names the proxy-gaming failure and the counter-practice). The triangulation/recalibration facets (correlated_proxy_monitoring, robustness, calibration) are load_bearing for *why A survives* the same pressure. Pruned to the operative subset: {performativity, goal_congruence_alignment, correlated_proxy_monitoring/observability, overoptimization_guardrail}.

### 3. transport / match (archetype) — carry the pattern to a solution shape
- `search_archetype` on the meta-model → top hits **objective_function_alignment**, **objective_weighting_governance**, and **correlated_proxy_monitoring** (rank ~7), plus **overoptimization_guardrail** surfaced as the related archetype off goal_congruence.
- `get_archetype(overoptimization_guardrail)` and `get_archetype(correlated_proxy_monitoring)`.

These two archetypes ARE the decision:
- **overoptimization_guardrail** — symptom verbatim: "People respond to the target by gaming, neglecting non-measured work, or hiding harms → the target has become an incentive field rather than a faithful guide to purpose." Invariant: "Broader purpose remains more important than proxy improvement." Decision rule: "Treat side-effect metrics as review triggers, not complete replacements for judgment." Mechanism: "KPI Governance Review… should have authority to pause, change, or retire the metric." Failure-mode of the *naive* design: "A proxy becomes the goal, and actors optimize the signal while the hidden state worsens" (Goodhart capture).
- **correlated_proxy_monitoring** — directly governs the hard-to-measure case: a hidden target monitored via signals, REQUIRING "Triangulation Signal," "Drift Monitoring," "Calibration Cadence," and "Fallback Measurement," with invariant **target-state primacy** ("the proxy must remain a means of learning about the target, not a substitute objective that displaces the target"). Its named anti-pattern: "A proxy becomes the goal, and actors optimize the signal while the hidden state worsens… Goodhart-style proxy capture."

### 4. evaluate-fit (gate) — walk each approach against the anti-signatures
- **Approach B** (one clean proxy + strong direct incentives, hold people to it) trips the disqualifying conditions of BOTH operative archetypes head-on: it makes a single proxy *sovereign* under maximum optimization pressure — exactly the "metric fixation / proxy capture" anti-pattern. correlated_proxy_monitoring's decision rule: "Do not trigger irreversible or high-stakes action from an unvalidated proxy without review, triangulation, or fallback." B has no triangulation, no drift check, no fallback, and the strongest possible incentive to game the letter. It also fails the stated SUCCESS CRITERION's second clause (must not be hollowed out) by construction — performativity predicts the proxy *will* reconfigure behavior toward its letter once it is the target. → **DROP B.**
- **Approach A** (triangulate several signals, treat any single metric as provisional, periodically recalibrate which signals are used) instantiates the guardrail and the proxy-monitoring discipline almost component-for-component: multiple signals = triangulation + robustness against single-signal gaming; "single metric provisional" = target-state primacy / metric subordinate to purpose; "periodically recalibrate" = drift monitoring + calibration cadence. → **KEEP A.**

### 5. reconcile — apply each reading to the concrete model and the meta-model
- Concrete (org incentives) view: A is costlier to administer and noisier per-period; B is crisp and cheap. On *short-run legibility* B looks better.
- Meta-model (proxy/target) view: under strong incentives, any single observable proxy is gamed and decouples from the hidden true target (performativity + Goodhart). B's very crispness is what guarantees the decoupling; A's provisional-multi-signal-recalibrate stance is the only structure that keeps the proxy tethered to the target as agents adapt.
- The two views genuinely DISAGREE (the meta-model is not decorative): the concrete view's preference for B's simplicity is overturned by the meta-model's verdict that simplicity-under-pressure is precisely the failure mode. Resolve in favor of the reading consistent with both the model AND the success criterion → A, because only A satisfies the "not hollowed out over time" clause that the concrete cheapness ignores.

### 6. STOP — decision is sound
No operative component is unaddressed: the gaming risk (guardrail), the hidden-target measurement (proxy monitoring + triangulation), and the time dimension (recalibration/drift) are all covered by A and all violated by B. Both load-bearing primes and both retrieved archetypes point the same way. Stop.

===DECISION_BEGIN===
DECISIVE_FACTOR: When a single, easily-measured proxy is made the target under strong incentives, people optimize its letter and it decouples from the true outcome, so only a triangulated, provisional, periodically-recalibrated measurement survives that pressure.
CHOICE: A
JUSTIFICATION: The real goal here is hard to see directly, and whatever single number you reward strongly will be chased for its own sake until it stops reflecting the thing you actually care about. Using several cross-checking signals, treating any one of them as tentative, and revisiting which signals you trust keeps attention on the genuine outcome and makes it far harder to "hit the number" while hollowing out the result. A clean single metric held tightly is the cheapest to run but is exactly the setup most prone to being gamed, which fails the requirement that the true outcome improve and not be hollowed out over time.
===DECISION_END===
