Turning rules into machine-readable code concentrates firm behavior at legal edges and amplifies the computable enforcement signal, creating larger opportunities for boundary-search; a modest, budget-neutral anti-gaming tweak in the simulation reduces boundary-search and lowers consumer harm.

Main Finding

Under transparent behavioral assumptions in an agent-based reinforcement-learning (ABM/RL) simulation, making regulatory rules more computable (machine-readable/"Rules-as-Code") increases firms’ clustering near legal boundaries — both in the enforcement signal and, importantly, in actual conduct. Ordinary adaptive updating reduces consumer harm modestly but does not reliably reduce boundary search. A budget-neutral anti-gaming adaptive design (randomized audit margins + outcome-based guardrail) reduces both conduct boundary mass and consumer harm relative to computable static rules, though edge strategies remain present. These are mechanism-focused synthetic results, not estimates for any real sector.

Key Points

• Estimand distinction: separates conduct boundary mass (true proximity of firm conduct to threshold) from signal boundary mass (proximity in the computable enforcement signal). This avoids conflating measurement precision with behavioral change.
• Core numerical comparisons (tail-period means):
  • Ambiguous static rules → conduct boundary mass 0.367, signal 0.281, consumer harm 0.175.
  • Computable static rules → conduct boundary mass 0.411, signal 0.403, consumer harm 0.202.
  • Computable adaptive → harm falls to 0.194 but conduct boundary mass ~0.409 (paired within-seed effect ≈ -0.002, statistically unstable).
  • Anti-gaming adaptive (budget-neutral) → conduct boundary mass 0.380, harm 0.177; paired reductions vs. computable static: boundary mass -0.032, harm -0.025; edge-strategy share falls from 0.868 → 0.802; intervention triggers rise (0.041 → 0.098).
  • RL regulator (tabular Q-learning) can lower harm/boundary mass but produces high rule churn (3.111), highlighting institutional-design limits of raw learning.
• Mechanism diagnostics:
  • Latin-hypercube sensitivity: computability strongly predicts signal boundary mass (β≈0.972, R2≈0.978) and also predicts conduct boundary mass (β≈0.780, R2≈0.749). Imitation has a smaller positive effect on conduct clustering.
  • Ablations: outcome-based guardrails account for more harm reduction than audit-margin randomization; audit-capacity increases alone do not reproduce the anti-gaming improvement.
• Interpretation: computability reduces rule ambiguity and measurement noise, which both (a) reveal clustering in the enforcement signal and (b) — under plausible firm-learning and imitation dynamics — lower the cost of boundary search so firms actually move closer to the boundary. Anti-gaming design alters which edge strategies are profitable and increases intervention triggers without increasing expected audit volume.

Data & Methods

• Modeling approach: agent-based model with tabular Q-learning firms (seven discrete strategy actions spanning overcompliance → open noncompliance), a regulator (static, periodic adaptive, RL, or anti-gaming adaptive), consumers, and a competitor-imitation network. Enforcement signal and firm conduct risk are modeled separately.
• Core design: 5 institutional regimes (ambiguous static, computable static, computable adaptive, RL regulator, anti-gaming adaptive); computability modeled as a bundled parameter (clarifies thresholds, reduces signal noise, speeds diffusion).
• Simulation parameters: 30 matched random seeds per core regime (some checks use 12 seeds), 240 periods per seed, 80 firms per market, boundary margin ε = 0.045, initial threshold 0.58. Full firm-period panel: 2,880,000 rows recorded.
• Statistical checks: common-random-number computability sweep, 96-point Latin-hypercube sensitivity runs (repeated across seeds), paired seed-level sign-flip tests, event-study alignment around rule changes, ablations removing anti-gaming components.
• Outcome variables: conduct boundary mass, signal boundary mass, consumer harm, edge-strategy share, loophole-shift share, formal violation rate, threshold detections, guardrail triggers, intervention triggers, rule churn, cycle index.
• Important caveat: parameters (action payoffs, harms, imitation strength, etc.) are design choices to make the mechanism inspectable; results demonstrate plausibility of the mechanism rather than empirical estimates for a specific industry or jurisdiction.

Implications for AI Economics

• Rules-as-Code changes incentives, not only information. Making regulatory tests machine-readable can lower the cost for firms (or AI systems) to discover and exploit the boundary of compliance. In AI contexts, this maps to models or firms tuning behavior to pass precise automated evaluations rather than improving substantive safety or social objectives.
• Measurement vs. behavior distinction matters for policy evaluation. A cleaner enforcement signal can make non-compliant-but-testing-abiding behavior (or risky edge behavior just inside the legal line) more visible — and potentially more prevalent — so regulators should not treat increased clustering in measured scores as purely a measurement artifact.
• Goodhart-style dynamics are likely: optimizing to a computable rule/test can induce strategic adaptation. Policy designers should expect imitation and diffusion of profitable edge strategies, especially where computability makes replication easy.
• Design recommendations (from modeled mechanism):
  • Anti-gaming elements (outcome-based guardrails and some randomization of enforcement margins) can reduce harm while keeping expected audit capacity constant. Outcome-based backstops appear more influential than mere audit randomization in the model.
  • Simply increasing the regulator’s learning capacity (an RL regulator) is not a panacea; the regulator’s objective framing, training horizon, and institutional constraints matter — otherwise you can get high rule churn and instability.
  • Monitor both measured signals and conduct-level indicators where possible; build enforcement that penalizes harmful edge conduct rather than only score-based failures.
• For empirical AI-economics research and policy simulation:
  • Use ABM/RL-style synthetic experiments to expose plausible strategic dynamics before deploying computable rules at scale.
  • Calibrate to real-world data where possible (heterogeneous firm costs, detection delays, observability of harm) to move from plausibility toward quantitative policy guidance.
  • Study multi-agent imitation and diffusion channels explicitly: in AI ecosystems, reproducibility of attack/edge strategies is high, so diffusion can amplify initial gaming.
• Broader tradeoffs: improving testability and automation of enforcement brings gains (reduced accidental noncompliance, earlier detection) but can create new strategic equilibria that raise social harm if left unmitigated; regulator design must therefore balance transparency with anti-gaming mechanisms and institutional stability.

If you’d like, I can: - Extract the full set of quantitative outcome tables and present them in a single compact spreadsheet-style summary; - Sketch how to calibrate this model to a specific AI compliance domain (e.g., content moderation APIs, differential-privacy claims, model-robustness tests); - Propose experimental extensions to test heterogeneous firm types, richer RL algorithms, or network diffusion channels. Which would be most useful?