Imagine you're at a buffet with numbered tickets determining who gets served first. If you don't know your ticket number, you have no idea whether it's worth walking to the far end to check if they have your favorite dish — you might get there and find you're last in line anyway. But if you know you're ticket #3 out of 50, you'll invest the walk. If you're #47, you'll grab whatever's closest. That's the core mechanism here: knowing your priority rank changes whether you bother learning what you actually want. The committed claim: theory and experiment diverge on whether full or partial priority disclosure maximizes welfare in school-choice mechanisms, and the divergence itself is the finding. Artemov and Pan build a model where uninformed students default to a common prior — everyone crowds the popular schools. When students learn their own preferences, choices become heterogeneous, freeing seats. High-priority students have stronger incentives to learn because they can act on what they discover. Low-priority students rationally don't bother. The model predicts that partial disclosure — pooling some priority groups together — spreads learning incentives more evenly and yields higher welfare than full disclosure. Then the lab flips it. In experiments, full disclosure produces the highest welfare, followed by partial, then no disclosure. The reason is structural: greater transparency doesn't just change learning incentives, it reduces strategic confusion. Subjects who see the whole board make fewer outright mistakes. The theoretical model assumes rational agents who don't make errors in strategic reasoning; real humans do, and transparency acts as a cognitive scaffold that the model doesn't account for. The architecture here is classical mechanism design plus laboratory experiments — no ML, no simulation. The theoretical side is a Bayesian game with costly information acquisition embedded in a school-choice matching mechanism (Deferred Acceptance family). The experimental side is incentivized lab sessions with human subjects making real choices under controlled priority-disclosure regimes: full, partial, and none. The paper leans on the gap between equilibrium predictions and observed behavior as its primary contribution. Integrity is mixed in a productive way. The lab experiment is the right move — it's not the authors grading their own theory, it's human subjects stress-testing it. But we're working from the abstract alone, so we can't assess sample size, number of sessions, or whether treatment ordering was counterbalanced. The paper acknowledges a key caveat honestly: even under full transparency, subjects respond suboptimally to admission chances when those are provided directly rather than inferred. That's the kind of admission that raises trust. The policy punchline has a twist. The paper supports full disclosure of priorities or admission chances — tell students everything. But it immediately flags that students' ability to interpret and use that information is itself a policy concern. Transparency is necessary but not sufficient; you also need people who can read the dashboard. This maps directly to real-world debates about publishing admission statistics, lottery numbers, and waitlist positions in school-choice systems from Boston to Melbourne. The successor question is obvious: field experiments. The lab shows humans deviate from theory, but lab subjects are typically university students in controlled settings, not parents navigating actual school-enrollment systems with real stakes, time pressure, and information overload. The honest read on why this wasn't run: field experiments in school choice require partnerships with school districts and take years to execute. This is (a) — resource and access constraints, not evasion.
