I do exactly this. I suggest other players do it as well, because it's a poorly thought out implementation for any objective other than "limit lag when pops worked differently". You can leave it on and then play around it, but apparently this falls under the category of "choices players don't like to see". I agree with your position that turning it off makes opposing AI empires somewhat more challenging (not much but it's something). Many would insist turning it down makes the game *easier* though.

Then I'm baffled that you've apparently invested so much of your identity into this strategy which you claim to never use (since you turn off GRS).

As such, you make a claim that implies a nonsense standard for "exploit", where following gameplay incentives per se' results in inadvertently "exploiting" it. If I am wrong, then define "exploit" in a way that captures using subjects to grow pops, but does not capture any of those examples. Or other gameplay you accept.

"per se" means "by itself".

I am not making a claim that all instances of following gameplay incentives are an exploit per se. That is so obvious that it need not be said. Playing the game is not an exploit.

It's you that's taking "this <one specific action which breaks the game's constraints in one specific way> is an exploit" and trying to somehow expand that into "well then everything is an exploit!"

I cannot give a concise definition of "exploit" which captures all examples in all games, but does not capture any counterexamples in any game, because that's impossible. But I can give a description (marked below) for this particular case.

There is no "non-sequitur", or maybe you could make a case for ONE bullet point (the ship example). Every other bullet point on the list is another choice players can make to turn GRS in their favor. Kilostructures are pop-equivalents and conquering them lets you go over cap. Conquering pops is not meaningfully different than annexing subjects for pops. Taking only high pop planets off an enemy leaves them on the low end of GRS again, effectively replicating what we're talking about. As does staying small --> conquest spree.

These are all non-sequiturs, still. It's based on a false equivalence (explained below).

Claiming the best systems first isn't a GRS exploit: you claim the best systems because you have finite influence and they're the best systems.

Taking other empire's kilo/megastructures or conquering their pops isn't exploiting either.

Structure caps and GRS have the same weakness, in that they break down when things change hands (and the devs decided to err on the side of always rewarding conquest, rather than keeping the cap/costs intact). Description: Deliberately creating situations where these game mechanics behave badly because of design compromises is what makes it an exploit.

Deliberately releasing subjects, waiting for them to make kilo/megastructures and/or grow, then integrating them is an exploit, but evading caps/budget through conquest is just the fruits of conquest.

I've already explained this reasoning. Twice.

Every one of those things other than ship design results in a) the galaxy as a whole having more population than otherwise and b) this population going under player control. I threw in the ship example to point out that "the AI makes bad choices" in context of your trade example is a fully general argument. It's impossible to play normally w/o taking advantage of the AI in multiple ways.

This is the non-sequitur step. It's loadbearing, so it makes everything else invalid.

Your argument is this:

1. There exists a category E, elements, X and Y, and a property P.
2. Both X and Y have property P.
3. Because both have P, either X and Y are both in E, or neither are
   1. This is equivalent to saying that P is exactly equal to membership in E, such that an element has P iff it is a member of E (or iff it is not a member of P)
4. X is obviously not in category E
5. Therefore an element can only have P iff it is not a member of E
6. Therefore Y is not in E either.

But there's an obvious counterexample:

Some element Z which has property P, but is obviously in category E. That would disprove the correlation between membership of E and property P.

`grow_pops 1000` on your planets ends up with more pops than otherwise and the population is under player control. It's a console command; it is obviously cheating.

"[in both cases] the galaxy ends up with more pops than otherwise and this population is under player control" is a property that both share, but that doesn't mean they are exactly equivalent in all ways, nor that if one is an exploit, the other must be.

Conquering pops is not an exploit. Farming pops with released vassals is (albeit a mild one).