Rapid progress in scalable, commoditized tools for data collection and data processing has made it possible for firms and policymakers to employ ever more complex metrics as guides for decision-making. These developments have highlighted a prevailing challenge -- deciding *which* metrics to compute. In particular, a firm's ability to compute a wider range of existing metrics does not address the problem of *unknown unknowns*, which reflects informational limitations on the part of the firm. To guide the choice of metrics in the face of this informational problem, we turn to the evaluated agents themselves, who may have more information than a principal about how to measure outcomes effectively. We model this interaction as a simple agency game, where we ask: *When does an agent have an incentive to reveal the observability of a cost-correlated variable to the principal?* There are two effects: better information reduces the agent's information rents but also makes some projects go forward that otherwise would fail. We show that the agent prefers to reveal information that exposes a strong enough differentiation between high and low costs. Expanding the agent's action space to include the ability to *garble* their information, we show that the agent often prefers to garble over full revelation. Still, giving the agent the ability to garble can lead to higher total welfare. Our model has analogies with price discrimination, and we leverage some of these synergies to analyze total welfare.

翻译：暂无翻译