@wundayatta I think words often have assumptions and connotations embedded in them, and then the way concepts and questions are framed add even more assumptions. It is the way we use language and how it is structured which shapes our very consciousness and perception of ourselves and the world around us.
In your scenario and question, I think that you’ve (perhaps ironic in the current context) repeatedly separated the subject and the subject’s actions from the rest of the world. It’s always you acting on the world and changing it in some way—this, I think, is already an assumption embedded in language usage. It’s something everyone does, though.
I’ll assume that the campaign was the causative mechanism by which crime reduced by ten percent, so as not to get bogged down in the idea that it was maybe caused by something else, or merely a coincidental reduction.
I think your scenario is inadequate, since it begins at some indeterminate point in time, which just happens to start with the actions of an agent (the “you” organising a campaign.) We experience a feeling of choice, we can ponder possibilities, and we have motivations to act—all these things are themselves based on past experiences, the accumulation of information, knowledge, the development of our psychology, etc, and all are a part of reality and affected by countless variables in reality.
I’m not really sure what “reality had changed” means in the context you give. I presume it implies some sort of alternative possibility that would have happened had the effort to act not been made. But, as I mentioned, the effort, or motivation, would itself be a product of reality.