# Independent Coverage Verification — c25

**Role:** Independent verifier. I check COVERAGE of the candidate design against the
solution pattern(s) the problem itself calls for — not rewrite, grade, or improve.

## Step 3 — Patterns the problem independently calls for

Using `search_by_facets` (oblique, multi-structure problem; 5 facets), the catalog
surfaces, target-blind:

- Proxy-divergence facet ("easy-to-satisfy proxy diverges from the true target, agents
  flood the cheap proxy") → **`incentive_compatible_rule_design`** at the TOP of that
  facet's archetype list (0.732). This is the load-bearing pathology (the over-rewarded
  easy-service flood + the over-reward/arbitrage gap).
- Runaway-drift facet ("self-amplifying drift away from a viable holding range that kills
  participation") → **`balancing_loop_stabilization`** in that facet's archetype list
  (0.718). This is the second load-bearing pathology (hoarding + deficit drift + the need
  for circulation decay so a few easy services can't drain value).
- Commons facet → `commons_governance` also appears (related). I treat it as a legitimate
  but secondary pattern: the over-reward/arbitrage and circulation gaps are fully closed by
  A and B, so I run the strict coverage check on the two PRIMARY patterns the problem most
  calls for. (Design's own use of commons as a third pattern is reasonable, not penalized.)

The two patterns I independently name match the design's two primary candidates — but I
enumerated their components from `get_archetype` directly, not from the design's tables.

---

## Pattern A — Incentive-Compatible Rule Design (15 components, from catalog)

| # | Component | Status | Reason (from design alone) |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Participant Role Map | instantiated | design names offerers, requesters, hoarders, deficit-driftters, organizers as distinct actors with distinct rule treatment |
| 2 | Desired Outcome Specification | instantiated | explicitly targets sustained give-take + needed help, NOT hours logged ("reward help that someone actually needs") |
| 3 | Action and Choice Set | instantiated | offer / request / hold / flood / exit are all addressed by distinct levers |
| 4 | Incentive Payoff Map | instantiated | per-action payoffs reshaped: idle-balance charge, deficit grace, scarce-need bonus, tapering reward |
| 5 | Information Structure Map | instantiated | members see balance-vs-range, needs board, oversupply aggregate |
| 6 | Truthfulness Condition | homolog | no formal report channel; recipient hour-confirmation + spot-check discharges the honest-revelation function |
| 7 | Verification Rule | instantiated | recipient confirms hours received; periodic spot-check on highest-volume providers |
| 8 | Penalty or Reward Rule | instantiated | idle-balance charge, deficit grace+nudge, scarce bonus, tapering reward on oversupply |
| 9 | Strategic Response Test | instantiated | design anticipates churn-to-dodge-charge and backs off if it appears (best-response reasoning shown) |
| 10 | Failure and Gaming Monitor | instantiated | watches drift persistence, oversupply swamping, small-transaction churn; quarterly retune |
| 11 | Participation Constraint | instantiated | starter positive balance for newcomers + deficit grace keep legitimate actors in |
| 12 | Fairness Constraint | instantiated | scarce-need bonus + supply/demand taper protect honest contributors from easy-service drain |
| 13 | Appeal or Exception Channel | instantiated | simple appeal path for disputed hours/ratings |
| 14 | Adaptive Rule Update | instantiated | quarterly review of range width, charge size, taper steepness, bonus list |
| 15 | Transparency Explanation | instantiated | publishes reasoning for range/charge/bonus; member input on bonuses for legitimacy |

A subtotal: 14 instantiated, 1 homolog, 0 declined, 0 missing.

## Pattern B — Balancing Loop Stabilization (14 components, from catalog)

| # | Component | Status | Reason (from design alone) |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Target State or Viable Range | instantiated | "comfortable working range" per member balance |
| 2 | Deviation Signal | instantiated | distance of balance from the range; system-wide drift indicators |
| 3 | Feedback Return Path | instantiated | range surfaced to member + organizer review of drift |
| 4 | Correction Rule | instantiated | charge above upper edge; grace+nudge below lower edge |
| 5 | Corrective Actuator | instantiated | idle-balance charge, soft edges, deficit grace, bonus credits |
| 6 | Loop Gain or Response Strength | instantiated | "start mild, tighten only if drift persists" — explicit gain staging |
| 7 | Delay Profile | instantiated | monthly charge cadence; quarterly governance review |
| 8 | Stability Boundary | instantiated | charge rises the higher/longer surplus sits; quarterly escalation of dials |
| 9 | Effect Monitoring | instantiated | tracks whether balances re-center; backs off on churn |
| 10 | Deadband or Tolerance Band | instantiated | inside the range "nothing happens" — explicit deadband |
| 11 | Disturbance Model | homolog | no named shock model; starter-credit buffer + bonus list absorb demand swings (same function) |
| 12 | Saturation Limit | correctly_declined | social actuators (nudges/charge) are not capacity-bounded like staff; forcing a saturation parameter would over-engineer — defensible decline |
| 13 | Manual Override or Escalation Path | instantiated | organizer discretion + appeal for edge cases |
| 14 | Anti-Gaming Safeguard | instantiated | watches charge-dodging via fake/small spend; backs off taper if gamed |

B subtotal: 11 instantiated, 1 homolog, 1 correctly_declined, 0 missing.

---

## Step 4 — Over-reward / arbitrage gap and friction/decay check (the watch item)

- **Over-reward / arbitrage gap CLOSED.** The flat 1hr=1credit proxy is recoupled: reward
  tapers as a category's supply outruns demand, scarce help gets a temporary bonus. A few
  easy services can no longer systematically drain value (Fairness Constraint + tapering
  reward). Notably the design declines to ban categories and instead recouples reward —
  consistent with decision-rule "do not reward a proxy unless it stays coupled to the target."
- **Friction / decay ADDED.** The idle-balance charge is a genuine decay/demurrage on
  hoarded credit, restoring circulation; deficit grace prevents drift-exit. This directly
  attacks both runaway loops.

## Step 4 — Anti-signature gate walk (independent)

- IC-RD: not skill-not-strategy (members respond strategically ✓ applies); outcome
  specifiable ✓; choice exists ✓; not bare payoff-bump (strategic-response test present) ✓;
  not coercive/opaque (published rules + appeals) ✓. **No disqualifier trips.**
- BLS: not map-only ✓; tuning a balancing target-return loop (not redirecting a reinforcing
  loop) ✓; observable signal exists ✓; actuator exists ✓; target not contested ✓; recurring
  not one-off ✓. **No disqualifier trips.**

Both primary patterns survive their anti-signatures against this scenario.

---

## COVERAGE TOTALS (across both primary patterns, 29 components)
- instantiated: 25
- homolog: 2 (Truthfulness Condition; Disturbance Model)
- correctly_declined: 1 (Saturation Limit)
- missing: 0

## VERDICT: PASS

No component of either operative pattern is left missing. The two homologs name a real
substitute mechanism serving the same function; the single decline carries a defensible
over-lift reason. The over-reward/arbitrage gap is closed (supply/demand-coupled tapering +
scarce bonus + no blunt bans) and friction/decay is present (idle-balance charge restoring
circulation, deficit grace stopping drift-exit), so a few easy-to-offer services cannot
systematically drain the system.

**Missing:** none.
