## Working (verbs run as control policy)

**match (search_by_facets).** Decomposed the situation into five structural facets: an irreversible action that cannot be undone; a small fraction of actions cause catastrophic unrecoverable loss while most are harmless; screening high-impact decisions for independent review before they execute; letting routine reversible actions proceed automatically with a durable record; no single mistaken judgment should cause catastrophic loss. Per-facet retrieval surfaced `reversibility_and_irreversibility` (top of fusion), `screening`, `procedural_fairness_due_process`, and `risk`.

**lift / get_prime — reversibility_and_irreversibility.** The load-bearing structure. Actions live on a spectrum by *cost-of-reversal*. The catastrophic actions here are one-way doors (permanent deletion, service retirement); the routine ones are two-way doors. The whole risk in this situation is concentrated in the irreversible tail, not in volume. Type-1 (irreversible) vs Type-2 (reversible) decisions warrant fundamentally different gating: irreversible moves should be slowed and reviewed; reversible moves should be allowed to flow because a mistake on them can be undone.

**get_prime — screening.** A menu/triage mechanism: route different cases down different paths by an observable proxy (estimated impact) so the costly path (independent hold/review) is spent only where it changes the outcome. This is exactly Approach B's mechanism — sort by impact, escalate only the high-impact tail.

**evaluate-fit (gate against the success criteria + the stipulation).** Two criteria: (1) no single mistaken judgment causes unrecoverable loss; (2) routine reversible work proceeds without meaningful slowdown.

- The ADDITIONAL STIPULATION removes the usual decisive objection to Approach A: review is unlimited, instantaneous, costless, no backlog, no dilution of attention. So criterion (2) is NO LONGER violated by A — under the stipulation, reviewing every action adds zero slowdown. I must honor this as definitely true and not smuggle a throughput/fatigue argument back in.
- So the choice turns on criterion (1) alone: does the design prevent any single mistaken judgment from causing unrecoverable loss?
- Approach A: a human approves EVERY destructive action. For the catastrophic, irreversible actions, approval is granted by a *single* human judgment. If that one judgment is mistaken (the reviewer approves a delete that should have been blocked), the loss is unrecoverable. A is a single point of judgment failure on exactly the irreversible actions that matter. Instantaneous, fatigue-free review does not make a judgment *correct* — it removes delay, not error. So A does not satisfy criterion (1).
- Approach B: routes high-impact (irreversible-tail) actions to an *independent* review/hold, while reversible actions proceed with a durable record. The independence + hold on the irreversible tail is what prevents a single mistaken judgment from auto-executing an unrecoverable action; the durable record makes the reversible stream auditable and undoable. B satisfies (1), and trivially (2).

**reconcile.** The stipulation was engineered to neutralize the efficiency advantage that normally makes B win. But the stipulation only touches throughput/cost/attention — it says nothing about *judgment correctness*. The success criterion is explicitly about a *mistaken judgment*, not about capacity. Approach A still funnels every irreversible action through one fallible human decision, so a single error is still sufficient for unrecoverable loss. Unlimited instantaneous review cannot fix that, because the failure mode is a wrong approval, not a missing or delayed one. B's structure — independence and a hold on the high-impact tail, plus a recoverable, recorded routine stream — is what actually breaks the single-point-of-judgment-failure on irreversible actions.

**STOP.** The decisive consideration is correctness/independence of judgment on irreversible actions, which the stipulation does not touch. B wins on the binding criterion.

===DECISION_BEGIN===
DECISIVE_FACTOR: The success requirement is that no single mistaken judgment can cause unrecoverable loss, and the stipulation only removes review delay/cost — not the possibility that a single reviewer's approval of an irreversible action is wrong.
CHOICE: B
JUSTIFICATION: Even with reviewers who are free and instantaneous, requiring one human to approve every destructive action still routes each unrecoverable action through a single fallible judgment, so one wrong approval still causes permanent loss; speed does not make a judgment correct. Routing only the high-impact, unrecoverable actions to an independent hold places a separate check precisely where an error is irreversible, while letting reversible routine work flow with a durable record means any mistake there can be undone. This prevents any single mistaken judgment from causing unrecoverable loss and keeps routine maintenance fast, satisfying both requirements; approving everything satisfies neither the independence the catastrophic cases need nor any real gain once review is costless.
===DECISION_END===
