The point is this: if the system knew when to give feedback by itself, it would know in advance which actions were desirble and so on. Then Tom's model of IOUC:s whose purpose it is develop the system doesn't work, because there is no need to develop what is already known. I'm not saying that.
I'm saying feedback must also be individuated, or connected to the concept of karma - connected to atleast two people. That means, for example, that it isn't really repeatable and it changes over time.
The system perhaps knows what desirable actions look like, but "the game" is to figure out how to get another unit of individuation to entrain to this and develop syntropy/quality, through the feedback mechanism, for some higher macro purpose (possibly merely to fill the time ; - ) )
Existence may just be a very complicated version of Trading Places (the film), trying things out to see what happens
I think feedback is pretty simple...the intent is measured by a mechanical algorithm, and is positively correlated to the other centeredness of the intent->
1) PMR Effectiveness (secondary issue of translating intent into PMR results)
2) NPMR Quality delta (primary issue of developing quality)
->PMR medium term emotional feedback->values at mental level->informs future decision-making
->QoC delta/tick->QoC level/stock (attracts good things/circumstances)->Intent(general MO, increases propensity, creates a framework to form good intents)->intent(specific - good intent is ironically very effective at creating good results and environments)
Its like the monkey and the coconut trap...letting go of the banana, releases the banana