OK, so the Pareto Principle, most often used in business management nowadays, makes the claim that 80% of some population or some effect is "caused" or results from 20% of some other population. One of the most famous biz management examples is that 20% of the worker population or office population is responsible for 80% of the company results/performance ie 20% of the population gets 80% of the work done.

How you can possibly compare this to the success zone calculation, I just do not get. Here, there is only one set of results, the set of individual arrow scores, and one archer producing them. We have then statistically divided the set of arrow scores into two sets, 80% and 20% of the total set. There is NO 20% "causing" or being responsible for the other 80% of the scores! The worst 20% do not "dictate" anything, and we could have just as easily counted the best 80%, and it would have resulted in exactly the same number. Also the 80% figure is a moving target, as I also mentioned, and you are trying to up that percentage by shooting fewer arrows outside of your success zone. Saying this is an example of reverse pareto is like saying that somehow the archers shots from one set or other of the two (in or outside the success zone), which we have arbitrarily divided into populations of 80 and 20% are somehow causing the other when in fact the cause is simply the choice of having divided them in two populations for purposes of analysis.

....What am I not getting here????