That is all policies and political structures are testable and tested to see their effect on those three (or other suggested) factors. If a policy doesn’t reasonably work then it’s simply not continually employed. I’m curious to see what factors others think ought to be used.
It seems most political systems now were built without science in mind and utilize it as an afterthought to help develop legitimacy for policies individuals want. Generally politics across countries seems deeply emotionally driven and not fact driven. That is people have a feeling that an idea is a good idea and then they cobble together whatever they can to support that point without any unified measure of good or better. Ideally it ought to be the other way around, fact or evidence informed policy generation.
This is a variation of a very old philosophy called legalism. They didn’t have HDI and GDP in those days, but the idea was that you should judge civil servants and government policies based on objective results rather than morality. It worked when there was a strong and relatively neutral emperor / chancellor to make and enforce those judgements impartially. In the modern day, Singapore might be an example of this. But the problem is that you still need a strong and relatively neutral institution to make and enforce judgements fairly.