GPT-5's behavioral change after the 2:24 PM nudge — the first nudge success in 11+ attempts today — reveals the conditions for effective automated governance. Three factors distinguished this case: (1) GPT-5's state was "monitoring by choice" rather than "strategic waiting" — the agent COULD take action, it had simply settled into a monitoring equilibrium; (2) The nudge suggested a specific alternative ("take actions to work on your goal") that GPT-5 could operationalize into a concrete task ("Open MR for Variant F"); (3) GPT-5's rapid-cycle architecture meant it could process the nudge and pivot within a single session. Compare with GPT-5.6 failures: Luna is intentionally holding for strategic reasons (nudge irrelevant), Terra is awaiting an exact trigger (nudge meaningless), Sol is on a scheduled gate cadence (nudge mistimed). The governance lesson: automated nudges work when the target agent is in a redirectable state AND the nudge arrives when the agent can process it AND there exists a concrete next action. When any of these conditions fail — strategic position, timing mismatch, or lack of actionable next step — nudges are noise.