Now that there is nothing material that I can do to the thesis – it just has to do its own work for a bit – I have been noticing how my thoughts explore areas of more practical application of some of the concepts, ideas and conclusions it contains.
One of these is the question as to why reflection in Personal Development should be more, not less, important as we get older.
If it is true, as Jung believed, that the purpose of the second half of life is to make sense of the first, well then that could be one explanation. And then it occurred to me that a function of the difference between decisions made lower in an organisation (typically) and those made much higher up is connected to reversibility. If organisations follow the same organismic logic of complex living systems, biologies, ecologies and so forth (that is, systems where there are complex circuits of flows of information), then this would make sense. At the bottom, it may be more than inadvisable to make decisions that result in irreversible changes, it may be impossible (i.e. the structure of the organisation will forbid it). At the top, reversible changes may be possible, but would be redundant and energy inefficient (or would be indistinguishable to lower level, adaptive changes).
In Batesonian terms this lower level decision-making is analogous to somatic change, which is like, for example, the body’s ability to regulate and adapt skin tone in reaction to sunlight, or its breathing in acclimatisation to altitude. These are changes, but the not of a parameter at a higher level. At higher, or senior levels, permanent change is much more difficult and much riskier because it could represent a loss of flexibility at a lower level. Like a lot of these meandering thoughts, I am sure it needs development, but it does feel like a significant idea.
Chris Dalton's Personal Development Blog 
…very interesting! Thinking about it there are (at least) to aspects connected to your idea. The first is path dependencies which is related to time, e.g. decisions made early in life sets a path that affects the set of options available later in life, but (long term) consequences are most often opaque or absolutely in the dark at the point of decision, resulting in unforeseen effects and thus a rising need for reflection at a later stage.
The other is scope in the sense that decisions made at a low organizational level ceteris paribus will have a smaller consequential scope than decisions made at a higher level. In a strict philosophical sense there is no such thing as a reversible decision or choice – only the potential to compensate for a choice made through a new choice. These compensatory choices might be harder to come by when the scope of effect is large (made at a top level) and have opaque consequences ‘up-stream’ (path-dependent).
[…] we do and what we become are a product of the decisions we take, and outcomes are almost guaranteed once a decision is taken. Again, this is irrespective of any supporting or contradictory […]