pivot-or-kill

Overview

Repeated failure is signal, not noise. When 3 consecutive core experiments fail expectations, stop iterating and escalate. The agent does not get to decide whether to continue — the user does.

Core principle: Honesty over optimism. Escalate over iterate.

Violating the letter of this rule is violating the spirit of this rule.

The Iron Law

AFTER 3 CONSECUTIVE FAILURES, STOP EXPERIMENTING. ESCALATE TO USER.

No fourth attempt. No "quick fix." Escalate.

Trigger and Escalation Flow

digraph pivot_or_kill {
    rankdir=TB;
    detect [label="3 consecutive failures\ndetected" shape=doublecircle];
    summarize [label="Summarize status\n(what was tried, what failed,\ntrend direction)" shape=box];
    analyze [label="Analyze root cause" shape=box];
    present [label="Present 3 options\n(Pivot / Downgrade / Kill)" shape=box];
    decide [label="User chooses" shape=diamond];
    pivot [label="Pivot\nChange method direction" shape=box style=filled fillcolor="#d4edda"];
    downgrade [label="Downgrade\nLower venue target" shape=box style=filled fillcolor="#fff3cd"];
    kill [label="Kill\nTerminate and archive" shape=box style=filled fillcolor="#f8d7da"];

    detect -> summarize;
    summarize -> analyze;
    analyze -> present;
    present -> decide;
    decide -> pivot [label="pivot"];
    decide -> downgrade [label="downgrade"];
    decide -> kill [label="kill"];
}

Step 1 — Summarize Status Honestly

State plainly:

• What was tried (each of the 3 attempts)
• What failed (specific metrics, specific gaps)
• Trend direction (improving, flat, or worsening)

Do NOT soften language. "Results declined across all three attempts" is correct. "Results showed some variability" is evasion.

Step 2 — Analyze Failure Root Cause

Classify the failure into one of these categories:

| Category | Description | Signal | |----------|-------------|--------| | Method flaw | Core assumption is wrong | All variants fail similarly | | Data issue | Insufficient, noisy, or wrong distribution | Results vary wildly or ceiling is low | | Implementation bug | Code-level error | Should be caught by debugging, not this skill | | Evaluation too strict | Unrealistic expectations | Baselines also fail to meet the bar |

Be specific. "Something is off" is not a root cause.

Step 3 — Present Exactly Three Options

Present all three. No filtering, no pre-selecting.

a) Pivot — Change method direction.

• Specify: what changes, what stays
• Estimated additional time
• Risk level (high/medium/low)

b) Downgrade — Lower venue target.

• Specify: new target venue
• What experiments can be cut
• What story line changes

c) Kill — Terminate the project.

• Archive all records and results
• Document lessons learned
• Free resources for other work

Step 4 — User Decides

THE AGENT CANNOT MAKE THIS DECISION. WAIT FOR USER.

Present the options. Stop. Do not nudge. Do not recommend. The user decides.

Red Flags — STOP

• Attempting a 4th fix without user consultation
• Downplaying failure severity ("close to working", "almost there")
• Blaming infrastructure instead of method
• Framing continued iteration as "one last thing"
• Silently lowering success criteria instead of escalating

Rationalization Prevention

| Excuse | Reality | |--------|---------| | "One more try might work" | You said that twice already. Escalate. | | "I think I see the issue now" | You thought that before too. Escalate. | | "Killing the project is too drastic" | Killing saves resources for better projects. It's responsible, not drastic. | | "Let me just tune hyperparameters" | Tuning is not innovation. If 3 approaches failed, the problem is deeper. | | "The baseline is just very strong" | That's useful information. Maybe this gap isn't solvable with your approach. |

The Bottom Line

3 failures → stop → summarize → escalate → user decides

Honesty is not pessimism. Escalation is not failure. Continuing blindly is.