Decisions · Layer 1
Should your loyalty programme be proactive or reactionary
Design the programme around a declared behaviour and review triggers, then retain a controlled reaction path for exceptions. Reactionary changes need a named failure and stop condition.
Design the programme around a declared behaviour and review triggers, then retain a controlled reaction path for exceptions. Reactionary changes need a named failure and stop condition.
## The decision boundary Proactive design begins with a target behaviour, evidence rule, funded offer, and review trigger. Reactionary design changes the offer after a complaint, partner request, or incident.
## The options ### Proactive design Choose this when behaviour and economics are understood. The cost is additional operating complexity. ### Reactionary intervention Choose this when a live failure needs containment or remedy. The cost is more measurement and exception handling. ### Guardrailed test Choose this when uncertainty is material but action is necessary. The cost is a stronger funding and review obligation.
## What it costs you The currency is liability, margin, engineering time, operating capacity, or member trust. In a hypothetical illustration, 2 points per dollar on 400 dollars of spend creates 800 points. At a hypothetical 1 cent value, that is 8 dollars of liability. Ten comparable cases therefore represent 80 dollars of stated value.
## How to decide 1. Name the behaviour or obligation the rule must control. 2. Identify the independent evidence that proves the event. 3. Price the member, operating, and liability cost of each option. 4. Choose the least complex control that protects the least reversible outcome. 5. Set the evidence that would cause a later review.
## What breaks The failure mode is a rule that measures its own success. Keep source evidence, eligibility, issuance, adjustment, and fulfilment separately observable. Revisit the recommendation when the balance has no meaningful value or the event cannot be independently verified.