A familiar institutional reflex, revisited through a narrower opening and a longer turn.
The System Worked
Here is the absurd system:
it rewarded the wrong thing
with perfect accuracy,
discovered the right thing
by procedural accident,
and then panicked
because its success
had exposed the design.
M◆
Memo — Undated
To: Everyone
Re: The Discovery
We have located the right thing.
It did not come through the proper channel.
It was not, technically, invited.
We are convening a working group to determine whether the right thing is compatible with our current definition of right.
Updates to follow.
M◆
A Brief History of Institutional Learning
Phase one: build a system to reward A.
Phase two: A produces diminishing returns.
Phase three: the system accidentally surfaces B.
Phase four: B is clearly better.
Phase five: the people who built the system to reward A
are now in charge of evaluating B.
M◆
What the Record Shows
Step one: build a system to reward A.
Filed as design.
Step two: A produces diminishing returns.
Filed as setback.
It was actually a step.
Step three: the system accidentally surfaces B.
Filed as anomaly.
Step four: B is clearly better.
Filed as threat.
It was actually a finding.
Step five: the people who built the system to reward A
are now in charge of evaluating B.
Filed as governance.
M◆
Corrective Measures
The system was built to reward compliance.
Then someone told the truth
in the approved format.
This created confusion.
The report called it an anomaly.
The committee called it a risk.
The public called it refreshing.
Corrective measures were introduced
to prevent future accuracy.
M◆
Misalignment
The machine rewarded the wrong thing for years
and called the pattern stability.
Then it found the right thing once
and called the discovery a breach.
No one feared the error.
The error had been useful.
They feared the moment
the system recognized
what it was supposed to recognize.
M◆
Institutional Panic
First, the system rewarded performance.
Then it discovered presence.
This was unfortunate.
Presence had no metric,
no sponsor,
no category owner,
no dashboard history.
The system panicked
and promoted performance again.
M◆
Award Criteria
The award went to the wrong result
because the wrong result met every criterion.
The right result was later discovered
standing outside the form
without proper fields.
Everyone agreed it had merit.
Everyone also agreed
merit had skipped the process.
M◆
Quality Assurance
The absurd system rewarded the wrong thing,
discovered the right thing,
and then opened an investigation
into how recognition had occurred
without authorization.
Quality Assurance found no defect
except the brief appearance
of quality.
M◆
Approved Discovery
They wanted discovery
as long as discovery confirmed the map.
They wanted insight
as long as insight arrived pre-labeled.
They wanted truth
as long as truth behaved like evidence
for the policy already written.
When the right thing appeared,
it was marked unapproved.
M◆
The Audit
The audit found the system functioning as intended:
wrong things rewarded,
right things delayed,
panic distributed evenly
across leadership.
One recommendation was issued:
In the event of actual recognition,
pause operations
until a safer misunderstanding
can be restored.
M◆
Design Success
A system that rewards the wrong thing
long enough
will eventually call the wrong thing culture.
When it discovers the right thing,
it has only two choices:
change the culture,
or classify the right thing
as hostile.
No vote was required.
M◆
Incident Report
Incident: the system discovered the right thing.
Impact: moderate to severe.
Cause: criteria were followed too closely.
Affected parties: leadership, optics, legacy assumptions.
Temporary fix: redefine success.
Permanent fix: pending.
Public statement: the system remains committed
to rewarding excellence
as previously misunderstood.
M◆
Definition Review
The right thing entered the room
before the definition had been updated.
This was considered impolite.
Several members agreed
the right thing had potential,
provided it could be made
less correct
in a more recognizable way.
A subcommittee was formed
to study the matter
until the matter became tired.
M◆
Recognition Event
Recognition occurred at 9:42 a.m.
By 9:47, it had been contained.
The first report called it promising.
The second called it disruptive.
The third removed the adjective.
By noon, everyone agreed
nothing unusual had happened
except a brief confusion
between value
and approval.
M◆
Compatibility Study
The right thing was tested
against existing priorities.
It failed.
Because the priorities
had been written
to protect the previous answer.
The study recommends
further testing
after the right thing
has learned to resemble
what we already know how to reward.
M◆
Your attention is the rarest currency. Thank you for the exchange.
— Mabst
Earlier turn in this practice: Approval Logic
Filed under: Practice in Motion & Anchor Practice
Explore more:
Home • Archive • Reader Guide • Rights
Makari • Stomari • Mabst • Panoma
Video • Audio • Gallery • Catalog
Creative practice. Art lives here.
Continue with Mabst
Elsewhere in the Studio
I See You
Presence forming in dense gray atmosphere, seen from the side. An impression from a sequence received at the threshold of sleep.
The Lovers in Line, and the Door of Vibe Palm
I am moving through a house of people, each one held in a different level of friendship or relationship with me, each one carrying a certain claim on my time. I feel the need to spend time with them,…