PSF note. The most current field-level exhibit for PSF, and a nearby demonstration rather than a competing mechanism. It is framing performativity caught in the act: the Amodei and Altman claims do what Bareis and Katzenbach show national strategies doing, setting up the categories (inevitable, necessary, a competitive threat) through which AI evidence gets read before any organization tests whether AI tracks its criteria. Two transfers. First, the way these narratives strip developments from their social context and push human choice into the background is how PSF's proxy metrics make a new way of judging work feel like the natural one. Second, the lock-in they describe (once a promise is backed with money it becomes a requirement people are stuck delivering) is the field-level closure PSF's three performativity mechanisms produce. The careful line: this is discourse and policy, one level up from the organizational evaluation PSF is about, so cite it as the field-level frame that sets the criteria organizations bring to engagement, not as evidence of the practitioner-level mechanism. Cross-ref → Borup et al. 2006 supplies the expectations theory this paper applies.