Camping detection introduces the risk of over-instrumentation, paternalism, and metric gaming.
The goal is to prevent unconscious persistence without introducing heavy governance or artificial progress metrics.
Options Considered
1. Time-Based Tracking
Pros: Objective signal.
Cons: Time is not stagnation; encourages metric gaming.
2. Hard Iteration Counters
Pros: Clear enforcement.
Cons: Arbitrary; breaks legitimate persistence scenarios.
3. Gamification / XP Systems
Pros: Engagement.
Cons: Incentivizes behavior distortion; shifts focus from truth to points.
4. Dashboard Instrumentation
Pros: Visibility.
Cons: Overhead; invites metric worship and governance creep.
5. Automatic Hard Refusal
Pros: Strong attention capture.
Cons: Paternalistic; blocks deliberate persistence and crunch-time execution.
6. Heuristic NLX-Driven Detection (Chosen)
Pros: Preserves autonomy; lightweight; avoids metric gaming; aligns with Prompt over Code.
Cons: Less measurable; relies on disciplined use.
Decision
Camping detection will remain lightweight, heuristic, and NLX-driven.
Rationale
The system optimizes for forward progress without over-instrumentation.
Detection must:
- Preserve autonomy.
- Avoid metric gaming.
- Avoid pre-optimizing governance.
- Follow "Prompt over Code" where possible.
Consequences
Camping detection remains advisory with escalation, not coercive.
Future expansion only when real pain justifies added complexity.
Evidence
klappy://canon/diagnostics/generative-arc-curveklappy://canon/definitions/cognitive-saturation-threshold
Notes
Expand only when it hurts.