Assignment 2: Redesign the Rulebook
Propose an incentive-compatible redesign of a matching or bargaining mechanism, and show it survives being gamed
Due: 12 May 2028 · Weight: 15%
The brief#
Take a matching or bargaining arrangement that’s currently failing, and redesign the rule that governs it so it holds up under strategic behavior, not just good intentions.
Choose a fictional (or clearly hypothetical) case: a matching process, a household arrangement, a repeated negotiation. State the rule currently governing it, say why it fails, and propose a specific redesign. The redesign must be a mechanism — a rule whose incentives point the right way — not advice. Tutorial 11’s workshop is built for exactly this: bring a draft, have someone try to break it, and revise from what they find.
What you submit#
A single document, roughly 800–1,200 words: the case, the current rule and its failure, your redesigned rule, and a worked example of someone trying to game the new rule and failing to usefully do so. Name the concept behind each part of the argument as you go. Show your attempt at breaking your own rule before anyone else’s — markers can tell the difference between a rule that was pressure-tested and one that wasn’t.
The spec
The brief poses the problem and leaves room for a response. The spec is the fixed part: what a marker checks. Some lines can be checked mechanically; the rest call for judgement.
- submitted by the deadline, in the format named below
- the mechanism you propose is stated as a rule, not a hope ("be honest") — a rational, self-interested participant must still be able to follow it to the letter
- you demonstrate at least one specific attempt to game your own rule, and how the design survives it
- you name the specific concept (incentive compatibility, mechanism design, screening, etc.) each part of your argument is applying — not just an answer
How it is marked
| Criterion | Weight | Perfect (HD) | Excellent (HD) | Very Good (D) | Good (C) | Satisfactory (P) | Borderline (P) | Unsatisfactory (F) | Poor (F) | Not Shown (0) |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| The redesign is incentive-compatible | 45% | The rule is stated with such precision that a rational, self-interested participant has no better strategy than the intended one — genuinely incentive-compatible, not just well-intentioned. | Rule is precisely specified and the incentive-compatibility argument is rigorous and specific to the case. | Rule is clearly stated as an incentive structure, with a solid argument for why self-interest aligns with it. | Thoughtful redesign that functions as a real mechanism, not just advice. | Rule is stated as a mechanism, though the incentive argument is thin in places. | Redesign is mostly a restatement of good intentions ("be honest") rather than a rule with teeth. | Rule leaves obvious room for self-interested deviation with no penalty or structure to prevent it. | Redesign amounts to advice, not a mechanism — no rational participant is bound by it. | No redesign submitted. |
| You show, concretely, how it survives an attempt to game it | 45% | The worked gaming attempt is the most damaging one a rational participant could find, and the rule visibly survives it without patching. | A specific, well-chosen gaming attempt is shown failing, with a precise explanation of why the rule holds. | A concrete gaming attempt is worked through and shown not to pay off. | Thoughtful worked example of gaming the rule, with a clear explanation of why it fails. | A gaming attempt is described and shown to fail, though the mechanism by which it fails could be sharper. | Gaming attempt is generic or hypothetical rather than a specific worked example. | No real attempt to break the rule is shown, or the "attempt" trivially succeeds. | No evidence the rule was pressure-tested at all. | No worked example submitted. |
| Your mechanism has a name worth citing | 10% | The redesigned rule is distinctive enough, and named well enough, that it could plausibly be cited by name in a future tutorial. | The mechanism has a clear identity and a name that captures what it does. | The mechanism is memorable, even if the name itself is unpolished. | The mechanism has a workable name and a bit of personality. | The mechanism is functional but forgettable — it works, nobody will remember it by name. | The mechanism is described rather than named — "the rule" throughout. | No attempt to give the mechanism an identity of its own. | The mechanism is indistinguishable from a restatement of the problem. | No redesign submitted. |