default_max_attempts_per_step: 3
classifier_model: "MODEL_1"
feedback_model: "MODEL_1"
tokens_for_ai_rubric: |
  Evaluate understanding of basic game theory concepts.

  Consider:
  - Grasp of strategic interaction
  - Understanding of Nash equilibrium
  - Recognition of dominant strategies
  - Ability to analyze simple games
  - Application to real-world scenarios

  Provide clear explanations with examples.

sections:
  - section_id: introduction
    title: Welcome to Game Theory
    steps:
      - step_id: welcome
        title: Strategic Thinking
        content_blocks:
          - "# Game Theory 101: The Science of Strategy 🎮🧠"
          - ""
          - "**Welcome to game theory!**"
          - ""
          - "Game theory is the study of strategic interaction - how people make decisions when their outcomes depend on others' choices."
          - ""
          - "**Not just for games:**"
          - "- Business competition (pricing, market entry)"
          - "- International relations (nuclear deterrence, trade)"
          - "- Biology (evolution, animal behavior)"
          - "- Economics (auctions, bargaining)"
          - "- Everyday life (traffic, cooperation)"
          - ""
          - "**You'll learn:**"
          - "✓ The Prisoner's Dilemma (cooperation vs self-interest)"
          - "✓ Nash Equilibrium (stable strategies)"
          - "✓ Dominant strategies (always-best moves)"
          - "✓ Zero-sum vs positive-sum games"
          - "✓ How to analyze strategic situations"
          - ""
          - "**Real applications:**"
          - "- Why cartels are unstable"
          - "- Why arms races happen"
          - "- When cooperation emerges"
          - "- How auctions should be designed"
        question: Ready to learn how to think strategically about interactive decisions?
        tokens_for_ai: |
          Accept positive responses as 'ready'.
          Language preference as 'set_language'.
          Otherwise 'off_topic'.
        buckets:
          - ready
          - set_language
          - off_topic
        transitions:
          ready:
            content_blocks:
              - "Excellent! Let's start with the most famous game in game theory! 🎯"
            next_section_and_step: prisoners_dilemma:step_1
          set_language:
            content_blocks:
              - "Language preference updated!"
            metadata_add:
              language: "the-users-response"
            counts_as_attempt: false
            next_section_and_step: introduction:welcome
          off_topic:
            content_blocks:
              - "Let's learn strategic thinking together! Ready to begin?"
            counts_as_attempt: false
            next_section_and_step: introduction:welcome

  - section_id: prisoners_dilemma
    title: The Prisoner's Dilemma
    steps:
      - step_id: step_1
        title: The Classic Dilemma
        content_blocks:
          - "## The Prisoner's Dilemma: Cooperation vs Self-Interest 🚔"
          - ""
          - "**The Scenario:**"
          - ""
          - "Two criminals are arrested and interrogated separately. The prosecutor offers each the same deal:"
          - ""
          - "**If you both stay silent:**"
          - "- Each gets 1 year in prison (light sentence, lack of evidence)"
          - ""
          - "**If you betray your partner but they stay silent:**"
          - "- You go free (0 years)"
          - "- Your partner gets 3 years"
          - ""
          - "**If you both betray each other:**"
          - "- Each gets 2 years"
          - ""
          - "**Payoff matrix (years in prison - lower is better):**"
          - ""
          - "```"
          - "                Player B"
          - "                Silent  Betray"
          - "Player A  Silent  (-1,-1)  (-3,0)"
          - "          Betray  (0,-3)   (-2,-2)"
          - "```"
          - ""
          - "**The dilemma:**"
          - "- **Collectively best:** Both stay silent (-1 each)"
          - "- **Individually rational:** Both betray (-2 each)"
          - ""
          - "**Why betray dominates:**"
          - "- If partner stays silent: Betray gets you 0 vs 1 year (betray better!)"
          - "- If partner betrays: Betray gets you 2 vs 3 years (betray better!)"
          - "- No matter what partner does, betraying is better for YOU"
          - ""
          - "**The tragedy:** Both act rationally, both end up worse off (-2 each) than if they'd cooperated (-1 each)!"
        question: "You're playing prisoner's dilemma once with a stranger you'll never meet again. What should you do from a purely self-interested perspective, and why?"
        tokens_for_ai: |
          Correct answer: Betray (or defect/confess)

          Reasoning: Betraying is a DOMINANT STRATEGY
          - Dominates silence regardless of what partner does
          - If partner silent: 0 years better than 1 year
          - If partner betrays: 2 years better than 3 years

          Look for understanding of dominant strategy.

          Categorize as:
          - correct_with_reasoning: Says betray AND explains dominant strategy
          - correct_answer: Says betray without full explanation
          - says_cooperate: Says stay silent (cooperative but not rational in one-shot)
          - game_theory_aware: Mentions dilemma nature even if wrong choice
          - set_language: Language preference
          - off_topic: Unrelated
        feedback_tokens_for_ai: |
          If correct:
          - Excellent! Betraying is the DOMINANT STRATEGY.
          - No matter what the other player does, betraying is better for YOU.
          - This is rational but leads to both getting -2 instead of -1.
          - That's the tragedy of the Prisoner's Dilemma!

          If says cooperate:
          - Noble but not strategically optimal in a one-shot game!
          - Betraying DOMINATES: better outcome regardless of partner's choice.
          - In one-shot games with strangers, defection is predicted.
          - (Later we'll see when cooperation can emerge in repeated games!)

          Explain dominant strategy concept clearly.
        buckets:
          - correct_with_reasoning
          - correct_answer
          - says_cooperate
          - game_theory_aware
          - set_language
          - off_topic
        transitions:
          correct_with_reasoning:
            ai_feedback:
              tokens_for_ai: |
                Perfect strategic analysis!
                Betraying is the DOMINANT STRATEGY - always better for you.
                Even though both cooperating would be better collectively (-1 each),
                individual rationality leads to mutual defection (-2 each).
                This is the fundamental insight of game theory!
            metadata_add:
              score: "n+2"
              concepts_mastered: "n+1"
            next_section_and_step: prisoners_dilemma:step_2
          correct_answer:
            ai_feedback:
              tokens_for_ai: |
                Correct! Betraying is the rational choice.
                Why? It's a DOMINANT STRATEGY.
                No matter what your partner does, betraying gives YOU a better outcome.
                If they stay silent: 0 < 1. If they betray: 2 < 3.
                This individual rationality creates the dilemma!
            metadata_add:
              score: "n+1"
            next_section_and_step: prisoners_dilemma:step_2
          says_cooperate:
            ai_feedback:
              tokens_for_ai: |
                Cooperation would be great if you could trust them!
                But from pure self-interest in a ONE-SHOT game:
                Betraying DOMINATES staying silent.
                If they're silent: 0 years (betray) beats 1 year (silent).
                If they betray: 2 years (betray) beats 3 years (silent).
                Betraying is always better for YOU - that's the dilemma!
            next_section_and_step: prisoners_dilemma:step_2
          game_theory_aware:
            ai_feedback:
              tokens_for_ai: |
                You sense the dilemma!
                From pure self-interest: betraying DOMINATES.
                It's better for you no matter what they do.
                Both thinking this way → both defect → both get -2.
                Could've gotten -1 each if they cooperated. That's the tragedy!
            next_section_and_step: prisoners_dilemma:step_2
          set_language:
            content_blocks:
              - "Language updated!"
            metadata_add:
              language: "the-users-response"
            counts_as_attempt: false
            next_section_and_step: prisoners_dilemma:step_1
          off_topic:
            content_blocks:
              - "Think strategically: What gives YOU the best outcome regardless of what your partner does?"
            next_section_and_step: prisoners_dilemma:step_1

      - step_id: step_2
        title: Real-World Dilemmas
        content_blocks:
          - "## Prisoner's Dilemma Everywhere! 🌍"
          - ""
          - "The Prisoner's Dilemma structure appears constantly:"
          - ""
          - "**Business cartels:**"
          - "- Cooperate: Keep prices high (both profit)"
          - "- Defect: Undercut price (steal market share)"
          - "- Problem: Undercutting is always tempting!"
          - "- Result: Cartels are unstable"
          - ""
          - "**Arms races:**"
          - "- Cooperate: Don't build weapons (both save money)"
          - "- Defect: Build weapons (get advantage if opponent doesn't)"
          - "- Problem: Building weapons dominates"
          - "- Result: Costly arms races"
          - ""
          - "**Environmental pollution:**"
          - "- Cooperate: Reduce emissions (collective good)"
          - "- Defect: Pollute freely (save costs)"
          - "- Problem: Individual incentive to pollute"
          - "- Result: Tragedy of the commons"
          - ""
          - "**Doping in sports:**"
          - "- Cooperate: Stay clean (fair competition)"
          - "- Defect: Dope (gain advantage)"
          - "- Problem: If others dope, you must too to compete"
          - "- Result: Widespread doping"
          - ""
          - "**The pattern:**"
          - "Individual rationality → collectively bad outcome"
        question: "Can you think of another real-world situation that has Prisoner's Dilemma structure? Describe what cooperation and defection look like."
        tokens_for_ai: |
          Look for recognition of the PD structure:
          - Two or more parties
          - Temptation to defect while others cooperate
          - Mutual defection worse than mutual cooperation
          - Defection is individually rational

          Examples: cheating in class, tax evasion, littering, free-riding,
          overfishing, etc.

          Categorize as:
          - excellent_example: Clear PD structure with cooperation/defection explained
          - good_example: Recognizes PD structure
          - vague_example: Right idea but unclear
          - not_quite_pd: Example doesn't fit structure
          - set_language: Language preference
          - off_topic: Unrelated
        feedback_tokens_for_ai: |
          If they identify a good example:
          - Validate it! Explain how it fits PD structure.
          - Point out: cooperation better collectively, defection individually rational.
          - This recognition helps understand so many social problems!

          If example doesn't quite fit:
          - Acknowledge the thinking.
          - Explain what makes something a PD: mutual defection < mutual cooperation < defection while others cooperate.
          - Offer a clearer example.

          Celebrate their application of game theory!
        buckets:
          - excellent_example
          - good_example
          - vague_example
          - not_quite_pd
          - set_language
          - off_topic
        transitions:
          excellent_example:
            ai_feedback:
              tokens_for_ai: |
                Brilliant example!
                Reference their specific example and confirm the PD structure.
                Point out: cooperation collectively better, but defection individually tempting.
                This is why so many social problems are hard to solve!
                Game theory helps us recognize these structures!
            metadata_add:
              score: "n+2"
              concepts_mastered: "n+1"
            next_section_and_step: nash_equilibrium:step_1
          good_example:
            ai_feedback:
              tokens_for_ai: |
                Great example!
                Confirm it has PD structure: defection tempting, but mutual defection worse.
                This pattern is everywhere once you see it!
                Understanding the structure helps design solutions (regulations, incentives, reputation).
            metadata_add:
              score: "n+1"
            next_section_and_step: nash_equilibrium:step_1
          vague_example:
            ai_feedback:
              tokens_for_ai: |
                Good thinking! Clarify how their example fits:
                Cooperation = ? (collectively better)
                Defection = ? (individually tempting)
                Help them sharpen the structure identification.
            next_section_and_step: nash_equilibrium:step_1
          not_quite_pd:
            ai_feedback:
              tokens_for_ai: |
                Interesting example but not quite Prisoner's Dilemma structure.
                PD needs: mutual cooperation > mutual defection, but defection dominates.
                Their example might be a different game structure.
                Acknowledge their thinking, explain the distinction.
            next_section_and_step: nash_equilibrium:step_1
          set_language:
            content_blocks:
              - "Language updated!"
            metadata_add:
              language: "the-users-response"
            counts_as_attempt: false
            next_section_and_step: prisoners_dilemma:step_2
          off_topic:
            content_blocks:
              - "Think of situations where everyone would be better off cooperating, but individuals are tempted to cheat."
            next_section_and_step: prisoners_dilemma:step_2

  - section_id: nash_equilibrium
    title: Nash Equilibrium
    steps:
      - step_id: step_1
        title: Stable Strategies
        content_blocks:
          - "## Nash Equilibrium: The Stability Concept 🎯"
          - ""
          - "**Named after John Nash (Nobel Prize, 1994)**"
          - ""
          - "**Definition:**"
          - "A Nash Equilibrium is a set of strategies where no player can improve their outcome by unilaterally changing their strategy."
          - ""
          - "**In simpler terms:**"
          - "Everyone is playing their best response to what others are doing. No one wants to deviate."
          - ""
          - "**In Prisoner's Dilemma:**"
          - "Both betraying is a Nash Equilibrium!"
          - "- If A betrays, B's best response is betray (2 < 3 years)"
          - "- If B betrays, A's best response is betray (2 < 3 years)"
          - "- Neither wants to switch to silence unilaterally"
          - ""
          - "**Key insight:**"
          - "Nash Equilibrium ≠ Best outcome for everyone"
          - "It's just stable (self-enforcing)"
          - ""
          - "**Example: Coordination Game**"
          - ""
          - "Two friends picking where to meet:"
          - "```"
          - "              Friend B"
          - "              Coffee  Bar"
          - "Friend A Coffee (2,2)  (0,0)"
          - "         Bar    (0,0)  (1,1)"
          - "```"
          - ""
          - "**Two Nash Equilibria:**"
          - "1. Both go to Coffee (2,2)"
          - "2. Both go to Bar (1,1)"
          - ""
          - "Meeting anywhere > missing each other!"
          - "Coordination problems have multiple equilibria."
        question: "In a game where two drivers approach an intersection, each can either Stop or Go. If both Go, they crash (payoff -10 each). If one Stops and one Goes, the goer gets +1 and the stopper gets 0. If both Stop, they're delayed (payoff -1 each). What are the Nash Equilibrium outcomes?"
        tokens_for_ai: |
          Payoff matrix:
                  Driver B
                  Stop  Go
          Driver A Stop (-1,-1)  (0,+1)
                  Go   (+1,0)   (-10,-10)

          Nash Equilibria: (Stop, Go) and (Go, Stop)
          - If A stops, B's best response is Go
          - If B goes, A's best response is Stop
          - And vice versa for (Go, Stop)

          NOT Nash Equilibrium:
          - (Stop, Stop): Either could improve by switching to Go
          - (Go, Go): Both would improve by switching to Stop

          Look for identification of the two equilibria.

          Categorize as:
          - correct_both: Identifies both (Stop,Go) and (Go,Stop)
          - identifies_one: Gets one of the two equilibria
          - identifies_pattern: Recognizes one stops, one goes
          - says_both_stop: Says (Stop,Stop) - incorrect
          - confused: Other answers
          - set_language: Language preference
          - off_topic: Unrelated
        feedback_tokens_for_ai: |
          Correct equilibria: (Stop, Go) and (Go, Stop)

          If correct:
          - Excellent! Two Nash Equilibria where one stops, one goes.
          - Neither wants to unilaterally change.
          - This is like traffic lights solving coordination!

          If says both stop:
          - That seems safe but it's NOT Nash Equilibrium!
          - If both stop, either could switch to Go and get +1 instead of -1.
          - Nash requires no one wants to unilaterally deviate.

          Explain why the two asymmetric outcomes are stable.
        buckets:
          - correct_both
          - identifies_one
          - identifies_pattern
          - says_both_stop
          - confused
          - set_language
          - off_topic
        transitions:
          correct_both:
            ai_feedback:
              tokens_for_ai: |
                Perfect! Two Nash Equilibria: (Stop,Go) and (Go,Stop).
                In each, no driver wants to unilaterally change.
                Both stopping is NOT equilibrium - either would want to go!
                This coordination problem is solved by traffic lights in reality!
            metadata_add:
              score: "n+2"
              concepts_mastered: "n+1"
            next_section_and_step: dominant_strategies:step_1
          identifies_one:
            ai_feedback:
              tokens_for_ai: |
                Good! You found one equilibrium.
                But there's symmetry - also a Nash Equilibrium where roles reverse!
                Both (Stop,Go) and (Go,Stop) are stable.
                In each, neither wants to unilaterally change.
            metadata_add:
              score: "n+1"
            next_section_and_step: dominant_strategies:step_1
          identifies_pattern:
            ai_feedback:
              tokens_for_ai: |
                Right idea - one stops, one goes!
                Specifically: (Stop,Go) and (Go,Stop) are both Nash Equilibria.
                Neither driver wants to change their strategy given the other's.
                This is a coordination game solved by conventions (like traffic lights!).
            next_section_and_step: dominant_strategies:step_1
          says_both_stop:
            ai_feedback:
              tokens_for_ai: |
                Seems safe, but NOT Nash Equilibrium!
                At (Stop,Stop), either driver could switch to Go:
                Get +1 instead of -1 while other stays stopped.
                Nash requires no one wants to deviate.
                The equilibria are (Stop,Go) and (Go,Stop).
            next_section_and_step: nash_equilibrium:step_1
          confused:
            content_blocks:
              - "Check each outcome: Can any player improve by switching?"
              - "Nash Equilibrium: No player wants to unilaterally change strategy"
              - "Hint: One driver stops, one goes (two ways to do this)"
            next_section_and_step: nash_equilibrium:step_1
          set_language:
            content_blocks:
              - "Language updated!"
            metadata_add:
              language: "the-users-response"
            counts_as_attempt: false
            next_section_and_step: nash_equilibrium:step_1
          off_topic:
            content_blocks:
              - "Find outcomes where neither driver would want to change their choice given what the other is doing."
            next_section_and_step: nash_equilibrium:step_1

  - section_id: dominant_strategies
    title: Dominant Strategies
    steps:
      - step_id: step_1
        title: Always-Best Strategies
        content_blocks:
          - "## Dominant Strategies: No-Brainer Moves 💪"
          - ""
          - "**Definition:**"
          - "A dominant strategy is one that's best regardless of what other players do."
          - ""
          - "**If you have a dominant strategy, PLAY IT!**"
          - ""
          - "**In Prisoner's Dilemma:**"
          - "Betraying is a dominant strategy for both players."
          - "- Better if opponent stays silent: 0 < 1"
          - "- Better if opponent betrays: 2 < 3"
          - "- Always better!"
          - ""
          - "**Dominant Strategy Equilibrium:**"
          - "When all players have dominant strategies, the outcome is certain!"
          - "- Everyone plays their dominant strategy"
          - "- This is always a Nash Equilibrium"
          - "- But Nash Equilibrium doesn't always involve dominant strategies"
          - ""
          - "**Example without dominant strategies:**"
          - ""
          - "Rock-Paper-Scissors:"
          - "- No strategy is always best"
          - "- Best strategy depends on opponent's choice"
          - "- Optimal: Randomize (mixed strategy)"
          - ""
          - "**Why dominant strategies matter:**"
          - "- Simplify analysis (easy to predict)"
          - "- Stable and robust"
          - "- Used in mechanism design (incentive compatibility)"
        question: "A company must choose High Price or Low Price. If both choose High, each earns $100. If both choose Low, each earns $50. If one chooses Low and other High, the low pricer earns $120 and the high pricer earns $20. Does either company have a dominant strategy? If so, what is it?"
        tokens_for_ai: |
          Payoff matrix:
                    Company B
                    High  Low
          Company A High (100,100) (20,120)
                    Low  (120,20)  (50,50)

          For Company A:
          - If B plays High: Low gives 120 > High gives 100 → Low better
          - If B plays Low: Low gives 50 > High gives 20 → Low better
          - Low DOMINATES High

          Same logic for Company B.
          Both have dominant strategy: Low Price

          Look for recognition that Low dominates High.

          Categorize as:
          - correct_both_low: Says Low is dominant strategy for both
          - says_low: Identifies Low without full explanation
          - says_high: Says High (incorrect - not dominant)
          - says_no_dominant: Says no dominant strategy exists
          - unclear: Confused answer
          - set_language: Language preference
          - off_topic: Unrelated
        feedback_tokens_for_ai: |
          Correct: Low is dominant strategy for BOTH companies.

          If correct:
          - Excellent! Low dominates High for both.
          - If opponent prices High: 120 > 100 (Low better)
          - If opponent prices Low: 50 > 20 (Low better)
          - Result: Both price low, earn 50 each (could've earned 100 each!)
          - This is another Prisoner's Dilemma structure!

          If wrong:
          - Check each scenario.
          - Show that Low always outperforms High regardless of opponent.
          - Explain this leads to (Low,Low) equilibrium.

          Connect to PD structure.
        buckets:
          - correct_both_low
          - says_low
          - says_high
          - says_no_dominant
          - unclear
          - set_language
          - off_topic
        transitions:
          correct_both_low:
            ai_feedback:
              tokens_for_ai: |
                Perfect analysis!
                Low DOMINATES High for both companies.
                No matter what opponent does, Low is better.
                Result: (Low,Low) = $50 each.
                If they could cooperate: (High,High) = $100 each!
                This is Prisoner's Dilemma in business form!
            metadata_add:
              score: "n+2"
              concepts_mastered: "n+1"
            next_section_and_step: conclusion:step_1
          says_low:
            ai_feedback:
              tokens_for_ai: |
                Correct! Low is the dominant strategy.
                Why? Check both scenarios:
                If opponent prices High: 120 (Low) > 100 (High)
                If opponent prices Low: 50 (Low) > 20 (High)
                Always better! This is another PD structure.
            metadata_add:
              score: "n+1"
            next_section_and_step: conclusion:step_1
          says_high:
            ai_feedback:
              tokens_for_ai: |
                High would be great if both could commit!
                But it's NOT dominant. Check:
                If opponent prices Low: 20 (High) < 120 (Low)
                Low is better regardless of opponent.
                This is why cartels are unstable!
            next_section_and_step: dominant_strategies:step_1
          says_no_dominant:
            ai_feedback:
              tokens_for_ai: |
                Actually, there IS a dominant strategy!
                Compare for Company A:
                - If B plays High: Low(120) > High(100)
                - If B plays Low: Low(50) > High(20)
                Low is always better! Same for Company B.
            next_section_and_step: dominant_strategies:step_1
          unclear:
            content_blocks:
              - "For dominant strategy, check: Is one choice ALWAYS better than the other?"
              - "Compare Low vs High when opponent plays High, then when opponent plays Low"
            next_section_and_step: dominant_strategies:step_1
          set_language:
            content_blocks:
              - "Language updated!"
            metadata_add:
              language: "the-users-response"
            counts_as_attempt: false
            next_section_and_step: dominant_strategies:step_1
          off_topic:
            content_blocks:
              - "For each company, which strategy is better regardless of what the opponent does?"
            next_section_and_step: dominant_strategies:step_1

  - section_id: conclusion
    title: Game Theory Foundations
    steps:
      - step_id: step_1
        title: Strategic Thinking
        content_blocks:
          - "## Congratulations, Game Theorist! 🎓🎮"
          - ""
          - "**You've mastered the fundamentals!**"
          - ""
          - "**What you've learned:**"
          - "✓ Prisoner's Dilemma (cooperation vs self-interest)"
          - "✓ Nash Equilibrium (stable strategy profiles)"
          - "✓ Dominant strategies (always-best moves)"
          - "✓ How to analyze strategic situations"
          - "✓ Why individually rational choices can lead to bad collective outcomes"
          - ""
          - "**Key insights:**"
          - "- Strategic thinking requires considering others' incentives"
          - "- Equilibrium ≠ optimal (Prisoner's Dilemma!)"
          - "- Dominant strategies simplify prediction"
          - "- Coordination problems have multiple equilibria"
          - "- Institutions and repeated play can enable cooperation"
          - ""
          - "**Real-world applications:**"
          - "- Understanding why cartels fail"
          - "- Recognizing arms race dynamics"
          - "- Designing better mechanisms (auctions, voting)"
          - "- Building institutions that align incentives"
          - ""
          - "**Next steps:**"
          - "- Game Theory 201: Mixed strategies and repeated games"
          - "- Look for strategic interactions in daily life"
          - "- Think about how to align individual and collective interests"
        question: "How has learning game theory changed how you think about strategic situations? Give an example where you might apply these concepts."
        tokens_for_ai: |
          This is a reflection question.

          Look for:
          - Recognition of strategic interdependence
          - Understanding that others' incentives matter
          - Application to real situations
          - Appreciation of conflict between individual/collective rationality

          Categorize as:
          - excellent_reflection: Insightful application showing deep understanding
          - practical_application: Good real-world example
          - general_reflection: Acknowledges usefulness
          - brief_response: Short but relevant
          - set_language: Language preference
          - off_topic: Unrelated
        feedback_tokens_for_ai: |
          Provide encouraging feedback!

          Validate their example/reflection.
          Emphasize key takeaway: think about others' incentives!
          Game theory helps predict behavior and design better systems.

          Mention Game Theory 201 for deeper concepts.
          Celebrate their foundational understanding!
        buckets:
          - excellent_reflection
          - practical_application
          - general_reflection
          - brief_response
          - set_language
          - off_topic
        transitions:
          excellent_reflection:
            ai_feedback:
              tokens_for_ai: |
                Fantastic insight!
                Reference their example specifically.
                You now think strategically about interdependent decisions!
                This foundation enables understanding mechanism design, auctions, bargaining.
                Ready for Game Theory 201 when you are!
            metadata_add:
              activity_completed: "true"
          practical_application:
            ai_feedback:
              tokens_for_ai: |
                Great application!
                Acknowledge their example.
                Game theory is everywhere once you start looking!
                Understanding incentives helps predict and influence behavior.
                Excellent work mastering the fundamentals!
            metadata_add:
              activity_completed: "true"
          general_reflection:
            ai_feedback:
              tokens_for_ai: |
                Good reflection!
                The core lesson: always consider others' incentives.
                Strategic interactions are everywhere - business, politics, daily life.
                You've built a strong foundation in game theory!
            metadata_add:
              activity_completed: "true"
          brief_response:
            ai_feedback:
              tokens_for_ai: |
                Thank you for completing Game Theory 101!
                You've learned to think strategically about interactive decisions.
                These concepts underpin economics, politics, and much more!
            metadata_add:
              activity_completed: "true"
          set_language:
            content_blocks:
              - "Language updated!"
            metadata_add:
              language: "the-users-response"
            counts_as_attempt: false
            next_section_and_step: conclusion:step_1
          off_topic:
            content_blocks:
              - "Reflect: How might understanding incentives and strategic interaction help you in real-world situations?"
            next_section_and_step: conclusion:step_1
