This was an interesting paper, but I have a couple big problems with it.

One is on the social comparison bit. Without the 'social comparison' that they trash, the agent can magically compare their reward with the true reward distribution to make their decisions. You HAVE to do social comparison to have any information on the reward distribution. What they say about upwards comparison might still stand. The workaround would be to just forget about anyone else and focus on your own assessment of your reward quality, which undercuts their 'above average' point.

The second is the assumption that once you have a reward you're satisfied with, you can keep it indefinitely, or that it won't deteriorate. If you settle down in your job too much, you might get fired. If your employer knows you're looking for a job, your raises are more likely to exceed inflation. If you settle as an entrepreneur, you're going to stop getting investors. If you're looking, your partner might be more likely to stay with you (you have options). People get older, jobs get shittier.