# kaal:claim:2267560-020

**Claim.** In the conventional NIE learning process, the requirements for rules and their adaptability to future states become clear only after stable and presumptively optimal rules have already emerged as suboptimal, so anticipation of future developments plays no role and learning is confined to learning from mistakes.

**Type.** failure  **Support.** argued

**Holds when.**

- conventional, non-dynamic learning process

**Source quote.**

> Anticipation of future developments does not play a role in this learning process.

**From.** Wulf A. Kaal, *Evolution of Law Dynamic Regulation in a New Institutional Economics Framework* (2013), III. Rulemaking in a Dynamic Framework, page 7

**Cite as.** Wulf A. Kaal, Evolution of Law Dynamic Regulation in a New Institutional Economics Framework (2013). SSRN: https://ssrn.com/abstract=2267560

**Verify.** sha256 of source PDF `7ecc9dd1826121a95bf252476cdaa1c8737ad8079e12caf66c4342ffae7af8af` at https://raw.githubusercontent.com/wulfkaal/Academic-Papers/main/papers/pdf/Kaal%20-%202013%20-%20Evolution%20of%20Law%20Dynamic%20Regulation%20in%20a%20New%20Institutional%20Economics%20Framework.pdf

**Failure mode.** retrospective-only learning in rulemaking  (family: rule-obsolescence-and-ossification)

**Topics.** dynamic-regulation

**Keywords.** learning-process, anticipation, rule-revision, trial-and-error

**Related claims.**

- extended_by: https://wulfkaal.github.io/claims/2808132-016

**Canonical form.** This markdown file is the canonical hashed representation of the claim. Its sha256 is the content hash used for attestation.