arXiv:2609.38643v2 Announce Type: replace Abstract: Stronger AI agents do not automatically produce better organizations: teams must also learn which work arrangements to retain and when to reconsider them, while those arrangements determine what evidence the team can learn from. We propose a modeling specification for recursive organization improvement and evaluate it through an executable checker, a public-record mapping, and two simulation studies. The specification connects actor-visible histories, organizational memory, decision rights, and the evidence used to retain changes. Study 1 crosses six decision rules, three memory conditions, and three task environments under fixed resource ceilings. In a stationary environment, cumulative evidence raises balanced evaluation's net value per task from 0.452 to 0.480, while selection regret falls from 0.029 to 0.002. After a workflow-ranking reversal, retained evidence delays adaptation. In post hoc acquisition-matched controls, the remaining contribution of program replacement depended on the memory rule: small and uncertain under an eight-round window, positive under cumulative memory after a reversal, and negative under reset evidence. Study 2 models human-agent review with shared errors, copying, and decision rights. It identifies a two-actor case in which public records conceal whether agreement comes from shared errors or copying, and shows how dependence changes the preferred placement of human judgment under a fixed budget. Paid observation can lower decision error while costing more than the deployment gain. Assessments of organizational improvement should track the evidence acquired and retained, using acquisition-matched comparisons to isolate the contribution of evaluator revision.