Something that I've been wondering about is that maybe team's should decide what their metrics are for the upcoming 3 months and then come back and decide what the new metrics are. At the very least, it becomes a big game about the org then.
Impossible to have 'metric based reviews' at that point. But I think that's fine.
That seems to be how quarterly planning worked in the largest org I've seen inside, though the PM and EM did most of the deciding and execs+board approved/disapproved.
I wouldn't say I know very many laws. I happen to know a few relevant to my fields of interest. They are memorable to me because they state complex ideas in brief, understandable ways. Rather than trying to learn a bunch of laws for the sake of knowing laws, look to your field for the important ideas and you'll often discover that someone has written formulated a "law". Most folks know Murphy's law, a general one, perhaps Occam's razor, and there's also Sturgeon's law and Godwin's law. In computer science you have Conway's Law, Brooks' Law, and Moore's law.
You probably already know quite a few laws, just not that they have names. "Power tends to corrupt; absolute power corrupts absolutely", and "Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic" come to mind.
I don't know the answer to your question, but it helps to know what Wikipedia really likes lists, so I was able to guess that it might have an article called "List of eponymous laws", and so it does:
Impossible to have 'metric based reviews' at that point. But I think that's fine.