Strictly speaking this is not the contrapositive and therefore the proof is yet to be seen. A sound corollary: "If I do not behave, it is because you did not measure me."

Is a contrapositive a corollary? P implies Q is logically equivalent to Not Q implies Not P.

A corollary would be some other relation that can be deduced as a result of P implies Q, not simply a restatement of P implies Q.

(Using the discrete math definition of imply, not the colloquial definition of imply).

Yes, a corollary can be just the contrapositive of something you just proved. Sometimes it's even more trivial, like a special case of a general theorem you proved.

A very common use is to re-state something so it's in the exact form of something you said you'd prove. Another common case is to highlight a nice incidental result that's a bit outside the path towards the main result -- for example, it immediately follows (perhaps logically equivalent to) something that's been proven, but it's dressed in a way that catches the attention of someone who's just skimming.

This is coming very close to denying the antecedent, one of the most basic formal logical fallacies.

No, I’m gonna do what I want to do. If you hire good people “what they want to do” is going to be what they think is right. Which may or may not be.