>>720162
That's quiet relevent, because the issue area is decision making continuum. How do you get a closed system to meet an arbitary objective without it undermining the outcome at some point in the decision making process.
Depending on which order decision are made, the actual outcome is likely to change. How can a system know which of the best procedurally generated outcomes is best when that assessment is biased by the timing of its internal assessment.

I first encountered this field of science in international policy planning, where aid groups deployed oversees seemed to always abandon their initial goals, resulting in a massive cycle of brainwashing and redeploying staff. No matter how hard you brainwashed a staff member, after a month on the ground the way they assessed orginizational priorities would radically shift, because at some point they would start making rational decisions in an order which resulted in suboptimal performance... but at no defined point was their decision making suboptimal.
In human terms staff who couldn't deliver perfect outcomes started trying to make perfect decisions, even when this led to outcomes the orginization could clearly see where stupid and inefficient.