This grew out of ticket:14610#comment:146389. If I write

foo :: forall a. (Int -> Bool) -> Int -> a -> a
foo p = go
  where
    go :: Int -> a -> a
    go !n a
      | p n = a
      | otherwise = go (n + 1) a

then I get

foo
  = \ (@ a_aYZ)
      (p_aWO :: Int -> Bool)
      (eta_B2 :: Int)
      (eta1_B1 :: a_aYZ) ->
      case eta_B2 of { GHC.Types.I# ww1_s1bZ ->
      joinrec {
        $wgo_s1c1 [InlPrag=NOUSERINLINE[0], Occ=LoopBreaker]
          :: GHC.Prim.Int# -> a_aYZ -> a_aYZ
        [LclId[JoinId(2)], Arity=2, Str=<L,U><S,1*U>, Unf=OtherCon []]
        $wgo_s1c1 (ww2_X1cu :: GHC.Prim.Int#) (w_s1bW :: a_aYZ)
          = case p_aWO (GHC.Types.I# ww2_X1cu) of {
              False -> jump $wgo_s1c1 (GHC.Prim.+# ww2_X1cu 1#) w_s1bW;
              True -> w_s1bW
            }; } in
      jump $wgo_s1c1 ww1_s1bZ eta1_B1
      }

But if I make go polymorphic,

foo :: (Int -> Bool) -> Int -> a -> a
foo p = go
  where
    go :: Int -> b -> b
    go !n a
      | p n = a
      | otherwise = go (n + 1) a

I get a wrapper and this worker:

T14610.$wfoo
  = \ (@ a_s1cm)
      (w_s1cn :: Int -> Bool)
      (ww_s1cs :: GHC.Prim.Int#)
      (w1_s1cp :: a_s1cm) ->
      letrec {
        $wgo_s1cl [InlPrag=NOUSERINLINE[0], Occ=LoopBreaker]
          :: forall b. GHC.Prim.Int# -> b -> b
        [LclId, Arity=2, Str=<L,U><S,1*U>, Unf=OtherCon []]
        $wgo_s1cl
          = \ (@ b_s1ce) (ww1_s1cj :: GHC.Prim.Int#) (w2_s1cg :: b_s1ce) ->
              case w_s1cn (GHC.Types.I# ww1_s1cj) of {
                False -> $wgo_s1cl @ b_s1ce (GHC.Prim.+# ww1_s1cj 1#) w2_s1cg;
                True -> w2_s1cg
              }; } in
      $wgo_s1cl @ a_s1cm ww_s1cs w1_s1cp

This distinction remains as let vs. let-no-escape in STG. As Joachim Breitner's comments seem to suggest, we could probably recognize this by applying the static argument transformation to the type argument of go. But we don't currently have any machinery for doing that, I don't think. Furthermore, that would fail with polymorphic recursion even if the only type changes are from newtype. That said, the SAT approach would presumably help when the worker has a non-essential type signature for clarity.