Does Strevens (2003) actually argue the priority rule is an economically optimal allocator of scientific labor, and what's the exact mechanism?

Why it matters. The 2026-07-11 capture 10-inbox/raw/2026-07-11-hop-self-exemplifying-credit-laws.md claims (Hop 4) that Michael Strevens' "The Role of the Priority Rule in Science" (Journal of Philosophy, 2003) argues the priority-credit system — winner-take-all recognition for whoever publishes first — approximates a socially optimal division of cognitive labor, nudging researchers away from crowded problems and onto under-worked ones. This is the capture's explicit "road home to AI," framed as parallel to exploration/exploitation in search, and is referenced as an unresolved extension from claim-merton-priority-disputes-institutional-norm-enforcement.

Why it wasn't promoted to a claim-note. The capture's only source for this is a WebSearch summary inside the hop chain — no URL, no exact quote, no confirmation the paper itself was opened. Per the sourcing floor (00-meta/specs/sources.md), a specific technical-mechanism claim needs a Tier 1–2 read with the mechanism stated in the author's own words, not a paraphrase of a paraphrase. Writing it up now would make a hop-chain gloss look more settled than it is.

What to read.

1. Michael Strevens, "The Role of the Priority Rule in Science," Journal of Philosophy 100(2), 2003, pp. 55–79 (confirm this citation independently — not verified in this chain).
2. Extract the actual mechanism Strevens proposes, with an exact quote characterizing the priority rule's function.
3. Check whether Strevens frames this in game-theoretic / mechanism-design terms compatible with the capture's "exploration/exploitation" gloss, or whether that framing is the bee's own extrapolation rather than the paper's.

On success: write a claim-note with the primary quote, link it from claim-merton-priority-disputes-institutional-norm-enforcement, and retire this question to _answered/.