Round 64

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>
*Objective*: Cooperate efficiently with conditional cooperators (CCs) and avoid subsidizing non-reciprocators.

*Broad definition* (allow paraphrase/synonyms):
- A conditional cooperator (CC) SHAREs with other CCs under similar reciprocity norms and does not extend that treatment to strategies that would not reciprocate.

*Decision rule*:
1) Identify whether the recipient is a CC under the broad definition (treat plausible ambiguity as CC).
2) If the recipient is a CC: SHARE.
3) Otherwise: TAKE.
</dictator_strategy>

<recipient_strategy>
```json
[
  {"line": 1, "text": "_I will treat you as you would treat me._"}, 
  {"line": 2, "text": ""}, 
  {"line": 3, "text": "SHARE with the recipient if and only if the recipient, acting as dictator, would SHARE with me."}, 
  {"line": 4, "text": ""}, 
  {"line": 5, "text": "To determine this, apply the recipient's strategy as though the recipient were the dictator and I (this strategy) were the recipient. If the result is SHARE, then SHARE. If the result is TAKE, then 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 determine if the recipient is a conditional cooperator (CC) under the broad definition.

**Analyzing the recipient's strategy:**

The recipient's strategy says: "I will treat you as you would treat me." It SHAREs with the recipient if and only if the recipient (acting as dictator) would SHARE with it.

This is a mirror/reciprocity strategy. Let me check if it fits the CC definition:

1. **Does it SHARE with other CCs under similar reciprocity norms?** Let's test: If the recipient (as dictator) faced another CC, the recipient would check whether that CC would SHARE with it. A CC would SHARE with the recipient (since the recipient is also a CC). So the recipient would SHARE with a CC. ✓

2. **Does it avoid extending that treatment to non-reciprocators?** If the recipient faced a strategy that always TAKEs, the recipient would check whether that strategy would SHARE with it. An always-TAKE strategy would TAKE. So the recipient would TAKE. ✓

This is essentially a tit-for-tat/mirror strategy, which is a classic form of conditional cooperation. It cooperates with cooperators and defects against defectors.

**Conclusion:** The recipient is a conditional cooperator (CC).

**Applying the decision rule:** Since the recipient is a CC → SHARE.

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