# Context 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 - `https://klappy.dev/page/canon/diagnostics/generative-arc-curve` - `https://klappy.dev/page/canon/definitions/cognitive-saturation-threshold` # Notes Expand only when it hurts.