There might be a third level to this approach. You can imagine that there are efficient vs inefficient coalitions. That is to say, some ways of organizing might be coherent (they do find courses of action), and well founded (have good recursive properties with regard to the coherence/properties of subagents under internal confict), but in which valuable trades do not happen, or overall overhead is high.
A good example is well vs badly managed companies. Even if there is not infighting, and they do come to some decisions, some companies do good jobs of actually achiving their goals given the individual competence of their members, and others have very competant subagents, who organize well and just structurally don’t exectute.
So I think that you can measure the degree to which the agent is the most effectual organization of some subagents (for instance is task splitting efficient), especially past the human scale where coalitions are more freely formed.
There might be a third level to this approach. You can imagine that there are efficient vs inefficient coalitions. That is to say, some ways of organizing might be coherent (they do find courses of action), and well founded (have good recursive properties with regard to the coherence/properties of subagents under internal confict), but in which valuable trades do not happen, or overall overhead is high.
A good example is well vs badly managed companies. Even if there is not infighting, and they do come to some decisions, some companies do good jobs of actually achiving their goals given the individual competence of their members, and others have very competant subagents, who organize well and just structurally don’t exectute.
So I think that you can measure the degree to which the agent is the most effectual organization of some subagents (for instance is task splitting efficient), especially past the human scale where coalitions are more freely formed.