The way it worked for me:
Go out of my way to make things better -> get promotion and pay raise -> go out of my way to make things better again -> no promotion or pay raise -> do the absolute bare minimum -> big pay raise
Maybe they thought I enjoyed improving processes just to do it and saw it takes money to keep me doing it once I stopped.
Or maybe the forces that determine whether I get more money are beyond my understanding.
Is it part of the aesthetic to do it poorly? I've noticed the paint often seems be chipped or applied unevenly and I've never felt comfortable asking if that's an intentional, stylistic choice.