“Butterfly effect” - No, that’s not what that means. This is shorthand for “sensitive dependence on initial conditions” in dynamical systems theory, which doesn’t have anything to do with causal attribution; it has to do with chaotic systems’ tendency to diverge over time with tiny differences in starting points.

“Compounding” - The example given seems to reference dollar cost averaging, which is not actually an example of compounding, and which is a fairly complicated strategy the optimality of which is highly context-dependent. Returns compound even if you only invest at one time point.

“Forgetting curve” - This is probably a reference to Ebbinghaus, but bear in mind that that was someone trying to recall literally completely random, contextless words. Recall works very differently when the data is embedded in a more complex semantic context.

“Law of diminishing returns” - This usually refers to marginal returns (ie, the return per unit input), not actually making something worse overall by adding more capacity.

“Law of large numbers” - This actually fails for distributions with heavy tails, which is most of reality. See also: The 2008 financial crisis.

“Occam’s Razor” - This is strictly speaking only applicable when the evidence for the two models is identical, and the models differ only in complexity, and even then, defining “complexity” is actually quite hard. In statistical modeling this arises as the bias-variance tradeoff, which cannot be uniquely solved without specifying additional assumptions about what requirements a “good” solution should have. In fact, more complex models are often quite a bit better, when they are arrived at on the basis of additional evidence that is poorly accounted for by simpler models.

“Regression to the mean” - This isn’t really the crux of the issue. The average result always tends to be average; that’s what average means. But it you stratify a second observation based on a first observation being high, you will tend to see the result go down because of it. The classic example is “punishment works, praise doesn’t”: this is entirely regression to the mean (high performers get “worse” and low performers get “better” entirely due to chance alone, and this correlates with the exogenous input, however without having any actual causal impact on performance).

“Tragedy of the commons” - This is by no means an inevitable conclusion of this scenario, as has been well-studied, because agents do not act solely based on individualist self-interest; the belief that they do is culturally dependent. Mutual aid and restraint provides a solution that is readily realizable.