I think the problem with this example is assuming that both decision outputs can equally impact profits (that both are perfectly symmetrical on their effects).

I think the problem with this example is assuming that both decision outputs can equally impact profits (that both are perfectly symmetrical on their effects). For example, if this person is deciding whether or not to extend a credit line to a client, the NO decisions are not going to have an effect on the profits bottom line. Saying NO a lot, in this case, means having the same cost to operate but fewer opportunities to profit from new and existing clients. On the other hand, saying YES a lot means that the company can profit from extending those credit lines but there's a risk that they would lose money from unrecovered credits and a more heavy collections operation. So, actually, Bob is only useful if he is the conservative one that says NO a lot. If Bob says YES a lot, his impact is only as good as the 5% of his correct decisions.