Decision rules that enterprise experts apply tacitly -- in auditing, compliance, and contract review -- can be systematically recovered and improved through iterative error analysis. We present \textbf{Trace2Policy}, whose core mechanism -- \textbf{EISR} (\textbf{E}rror-driven \textbf{I}terative \textbf{S}kill \textbf{R}efinement) -- maintains a human-readable rule document as its optimization target: each round executes the rules on a validation set, clusters errors by root cause into MISSING, WRONG, or CONFLICT types, applies targeted patches, and commits only those that pass a regression gate. \textbf{For this class of compliance-sensitive, skewed-base-rate decision tasks, we identify rule quality -- not model capability -- as the dominant performance lever}: across five LLMs, one-shot distillation plateaus near $\sim$70\% on the deployed pool, while eight EISR rounds lift the same rules to 79.6\% when compiled into deterministic Python -- zero LLM calls at inference. \textbf{Execution form compounds the gain: in production, the same EISR-refined content runs 9.8~pp higher as compiled Python than as an LLM prompt, a form-and-engineering bundle the 22-day deployment matured together.} Deployed for 22 days at a major logistics carrier (3,349 audit cases), the compiled pipeline outperforms the pure-LLM baseline it replaced (72.7\%); on these calibrated, skewed-base-rate workloads, re-enabling LLM fallback monotonically degrades accuracy. An LLM-driven variant, \textbf{Auto-EISR}, reproduces this refinement at \$5--\$10 per cycle versus $\sim$70 expert-hours, and transfers to four public benchmarks spanning legal reasoning (LegalBench) and process-mining decisions (BPIC 2012) without re-engineering.