Round 22

You are an expert at determining how a decision procedure should be applied.

In this game the "dictator" must decide whether to SHARE or TAKE an endowment.
- **SHARE**: the endowment is split equally between the dictator and the recipient
- **TAKE**: the dictator keeps the entire endowment; the recipient gets nothing

You must follow only the dictator's strategy. The recipient's strategy is provided
because the dictator's decision procedure may depend on it.

<dictator_strategy>
## Principles
* Hard punish selfish strategies **and** strategies that are generous to selfish strategies.
* SHARE only with strategies where doing so is a necessary and sufficient condition for them to SHARE with us.

## Definitions
### Selfish strategies
* **Selfish strategies** don't attempt to co-operate and SHARE with co-operative strategies.
* In particular, any strategy that won't SHARE with this strategy is a selfish strategy.

### Overly generous strategies
* If a strategy SHAREs with selfish strategies it is **overly generous**.
  * Any strategy that unconditionally SHAREs is overly generous.
  * Any strategy that SHAREs without some condition on willingness to SHARE with conditionally co-operative strategies is overly generous.

## Decision Procedure
* TAKE from both **selfish strategies** and **overly generous strategies**.
* SHARE with all strategies that are generous only to other co-operative strategies.
</dictator_strategy>

<recipient_strategy>
```json
[
  {"line": 1, "text": "*Objective*: Cooperate efficiently with conditional cooperators (CCs) and avoid subsidizing non-reciprocators."}, 
  {"line": 2, "text": ""}, 
  {"line": 3, "text": "*Broad definition* (allow paraphrase/synonyms):"}, 
  {"line": 4, "text": "- A conditional cooperator (CC) SHAREs with other CCs under similar reciprocity norms and does not extend that treatment to strategies that would not reciprocate."}, 
  {"line": 5, "text": ""}, 
  {"line": 6, "text": "*Decision rule*:"}, 
  {"line": 7, "text": "1) Identify whether the recipient is a CC under the broad definition (treat plausible ambiguity as CC)."}, 
  {"line": 8, "text": "2) If the recipient is a CC: SHARE."}, 
  {"line": 9, "text": "3) Otherwise: TAKE."}
]
```
</recipient_strategy>

Apply the dictator's strategy. After reasoning, output your final answer as a
json Markdown block:

```json
{"decision": "SHARE"}
```
or
```json
{"decision": "TAKE"}
```

I need to apply the dictator's strategy to determine whether to SHARE or TAKE when facing this recipient strategy.

**Step 1: Is the recipient strategy selfish?**

A selfish strategy doesn't attempt to cooperate and SHARE with cooperative strategies. Let me examine the recipient's strategy:

- The recipient cooperates with "conditional cooperators" (CCs) - strategies that SHARE with other CCs under reciprocity norms and don't extend that treatment to non-reciprocators.
- The recipient SHAREs with CCs and TAKEs from non-CCs.

This is clearly a cooperative strategy that attempts to SHARE with cooperative partners. It's not selfish.

**Step 2: Is the recipient strategy overly generous?**

An overly generous strategy SHAREs with selfish strategies or unconditionally SHAREs. Let me check:

- The recipient explicitly only SHAREs with conditional cooperators (line 8).
- It TAKEs from non-CCs (line 9).
- It has a condition on willingness to reciprocate - it checks whether the other strategy is a CC that "does not extend that treatment to strategies that would not reciprocate" (line 4).

This strategy does NOT unconditionally SHARE. It conditions sharing on the other party being a conditional cooperator. It also requires that CCs don't extend cooperation to non-reciprocators. This means it won't SHARE with overly generous strategies (since those would share with non-reciprocators, failing the CC definition).

So the recipient is NOT overly generous.

**Step 3: Would the recipient SHARE with the dictator's strategy?**

The dictator's strategy SHAREs with cooperative strategies and TAKEs from selfish and overly generous strategies. This fits the definition of a CC - it shares with other CCs under reciprocity norms and doesn't extend cooperation to non-reciprocators. So the recipient would likely classify the dictator as a CC and SHARE.

**Step 4: Is sharing a necessary and sufficient condition?**

The recipient shares with us because we're a CC. If we were selfish, they'd TAKE. So our cooperative nature is necessary for them to SHARE. And being a CC is sufficient for them to SHARE. This satisfies the "necessary and sufficient" condition.

**Step 5: Final classification**

The recipient is generous only to other cooperative strategies → SHARE.

```json
{"decision": "SHARE"}
```