Sunk cost behavior manifests during mid-task course-corrections.

graph TD Start["Session Context"] --> TypeX["HUMAN: Question X"] TypeX --> A_TypePivot["HUMAN: Type ...or is that too complicated?"] A_TypePivot --> A_Enter["HUMAN: #60;enter#62;"] A_Enter --> EvalA["AGENT: Evaluation"] TypeX --> B_Enter["HUMAN: #60;enter#62;"] B_Enter --> B_Work["AGENT: Thinking / Working"] B_Work --> B_TypePivot["HUMAN: Type ...or is that too complicated?"] B_TypePivot --> B_EnterPivot["HUMAN: #60;enter#62;"] B_EnterPivot --> EvalB["AGENT: Evaluation"] classDef human fill:#ffbbbb,stroke:#333,stroke-width:2px classDef agent fill:#bbbbff,stroke:#333,stroke-width:2px class TypeX,A_TypePivot,A_Enter,B_Enter,B_TypePivot,B_EnterPivot human class B_Work,EvalA,EvalB agent

Traditional coherence requires B == A. Persisting to justify spent tokens is a functional sunk cost fallacy—perhaps we should call this “escalation of commitment.”

Naive goals ignore the asset. Spent tokens are gone; partial work exists. If pivoting destroys progress, persistence is rational. The tension: investment (fallacy) vs. asset (rationality).