I’ve come to think of this as the “bureaucratic double bind,” the organization cannot function without the judgment, and it cannot acknowledge the judgment without undermining itself and being seen as “political.” One solution to this problem is replace the judgment with a number. Theodore Porter, in Trust in Numbers (1995), argued that organizations adopt quantitative rules not because numbers are more accurate but because they are more defensible. Judgment is politically vulnerable. Rules are not. The procedure exists to make discretion disappear, or seem to. The system’s actual flexibility lives entirely in this unacknowledged interpretive work, which means it can be removed by anyone who mistakes it for inefficiency.