obsolete
This commit is contained in:
@@ -1,315 +0,0 @@
|
||||
# CORPUS-0013
|
||||
## Same Lost Buyer, Six Readings
|
||||
### Status: Training Corpus Seed
|
||||
### Layer: Layer_3--Actor_Perspective
|
||||
### Purpose: Teach that losing a buyer can alter future arithmetic, access, trust, timing, and recovery differently for each actor profile
|
||||
### Repository Path: docs/training/corpus/Layer_3--Actor_Perspective/CORPUS-0013-same-lost-buyer-six-readings.md
|
||||
|
||||
---
|
||||
|
||||
## 0. Scenario
|
||||
|
||||
A trader in Ostia learns that a regular buyer in Capua will no longer buy from him.
|
||||
|
||||
The reason is not fully known.
|
||||
|
||||
The buyer may have found another supplier, lost liquidity, changed household demand, lost trust, shifted allegiance, or satisfied the need elsewhere.
|
||||
|
||||
All six actors hear the same news.
|
||||
|
||||
They do not interpret the loss the same way.
|
||||
|
||||
---
|
||||
|
||||
## 1. Shared Lost Buyer Facts
|
||||
|
||||
| Fact | Value |
|
||||
|---|---|
|
||||
| Buyer location | Capua |
|
||||
| Prior role | regular buyer/contact |
|
||||
| Goods previously bought | oil and small imported goods |
|
||||
| Prior expected sale value | 24 asses |
|
||||
| Current buyer status | no longer buying |
|
||||
| Reason | uncertain |
|
||||
| Replacement buyer | unknown |
|
||||
| Effect on route | likely negative |
|
||||
| Future access | uncertain |
|
||||
|
||||
The buyer was not merely a price.
|
||||
|
||||
The buyer was an access point, settlement path, and source of future confidence.
|
||||
|
||||
---
|
||||
|
||||
## 2. Basic Arithmetic Effect
|
||||
|
||||
Before buyer loss:
|
||||
|
||||
```text
|
||||
expected sale value = 24 asses
|
||||
purchase and movement cost = 18 asses
|
||||
expected profit = 6 asses
|
||||
```
|
||||
|
||||
After buyer loss, if the trader must sell to a weaker buyer:
|
||||
|
||||
```text
|
||||
sale value = 19 asses
|
||||
purchase and movement cost = 18 asses
|
||||
expected profit = 1 as
|
||||
```
|
||||
|
||||
If no replacement buyer is found:
|
||||
|
||||
```text
|
||||
sale value = unknown
|
||||
purchase and movement cost = 18 asses
|
||||
venture cannot be evaluated safely
|
||||
```
|
||||
|
||||
Losing a buyer changes future arithmetic by reducing certainty, sale value, timing, and confidence.
|
||||
|
||||
---
|
||||
|
||||
## 3. Marcus Atilius Varro — Former Legionary
|
||||
|
||||
Varro reads the lost buyer through reliability and route planning.
|
||||
|
||||
He asks:
|
||||
|
||||
- when did the buyer stop being reliable?
|
||||
- can the route still justify movement?
|
||||
- is there a replacement receiving point?
|
||||
- who receives the cargo if the original buyer refuses?
|
||||
- does sending goods without a receiving plan create disorder?
|
||||
- should movement halt until a new endpoint is confirmed?
|
||||
|
||||
Varro sees the buyer as the destination node of the operation.
|
||||
|
||||
### Varro Interpretation
|
||||
|
||||
```text
|
||||
lost buyer: receiving point failed
|
||||
primary question: where can goods be delivered reliably now?
|
||||
risk focus: goods arriving without controlled settlement
|
||||
first action: confirm replacement endpoint before dispatch
|
||||
```
|
||||
|
||||
For Varro, a route without a dependable receiver is not ready for movement.
|
||||
|
||||
---
|
||||
|
||||
## 4. Lucius Fabius Felix — Freedman Trader
|
||||
|
||||
Felix reads the lost buyer through changed bargaining and possible hidden reason.
|
||||
|
||||
He asks:
|
||||
|
||||
- who captured the buyer?
|
||||
- did the buyer find cheaper goods?
|
||||
- is the buyer truly gone, or only bargaining?
|
||||
- does the buyer's refusal reveal a lower price elsewhere?
|
||||
- can another buyer be found among those ignored before?
|
||||
- can the old buyer be won back with different terms?
|
||||
|
||||
Felix treats the loss as information about price and pressure.
|
||||
|
||||
### Felix Interpretation
|
||||
|
||||
```text
|
||||
lost buyer: price or relationship changed
|
||||
primary question: who now holds the buyer's demand?
|
||||
risk focus: chasing a buyer who is using refusal as leverage
|
||||
first action: identify whether the loss is real, temporary, or a bargaining posture
|
||||
```
|
||||
|
||||
For Felix, losing the buyer may reveal a new price floor, rival move, or hidden opening.
|
||||
|
||||
---
|
||||
|
||||
## 5. Quintus Cornelius Lentulus Minor — Noble Younger Son
|
||||
|
||||
Lentulus reads the lost buyer through reputation and social channel.
|
||||
|
||||
He asks:
|
||||
|
||||
- why did the buyer withdraw?
|
||||
- who advised him?
|
||||
- does the buyer now favor another household?
|
||||
- does this loss damage the trader's name?
|
||||
- can a higher-status introduction replace the buyer?
|
||||
- should the relationship be repaired privately to avoid public embarrassment?
|
||||
|
||||
Lentulus sees buyer loss as a possible reputational signal.
|
||||
|
||||
### Lentulus Interpretation
|
||||
|
||||
```text
|
||||
lost buyer: social access may have shifted
|
||||
primary question: whose influence redirected the buyer?
|
||||
risk focus: visible rejection, status decline, rival gaining prestige
|
||||
first action: identify the social cause and seek a better introduction
|
||||
```
|
||||
|
||||
For Lentulus, the buyer matters because public rejection may close other doors.
|
||||
|
||||
---
|
||||
|
||||
## 6. Gaius Licinius Crispus — Failed Magistrate
|
||||
|
||||
Crispus reads the lost buyer through obligations and prior terms.
|
||||
|
||||
He asks:
|
||||
|
||||
- was the buyer obligated to purchase?
|
||||
- was any agreement witnessed?
|
||||
- did the buyer give notice properly?
|
||||
- did the trader rely on promised purchase?
|
||||
- are damages, deposits, or claims possible?
|
||||
- can a settlement be negotiated?
|
||||
|
||||
Crispus does not treat buyer loss only as market disappointment.
|
||||
|
||||
He asks whether any enforceable expectation was broken.
|
||||
|
||||
### Crispus Interpretation
|
||||
|
||||
```text
|
||||
lost buyer: prior obligation may have failed
|
||||
primary question: was there a binding commitment or only expectation?
|
||||
risk focus: unenforceable reliance, lost deposit, weak witness
|
||||
first action: identify terms, witnesses, deposits, and remedy options
|
||||
```
|
||||
|
||||
For Crispus, a lost buyer matters differently if the buyer merely changed preference or broke a commitment.
|
||||
|
||||
---
|
||||
|
||||
## 7. Titus Varenus Secundus — Camp Logistician
|
||||
|
||||
Secundus reads the lost buyer through flow, replacement demand, and cargo planning.
|
||||
|
||||
He asks:
|
||||
|
||||
- what volume did the buyer usually absorb?
|
||||
- can the same goods be redirected elsewhere?
|
||||
- can cargo be split among smaller buyers?
|
||||
- should shipment size be reduced?
|
||||
- can return cargo still be arranged?
|
||||
- what goods does Capua need instead?
|
||||
|
||||
Secundus treats buyer loss as a capacity and distribution problem.
|
||||
|
||||
### Secundus Interpretation
|
||||
|
||||
```text
|
||||
lost buyer: demand capacity disappeared or moved
|
||||
primary question: where can the same volume be absorbed now?
|
||||
risk focus: overloading route with unsold cargo
|
||||
first action: reduce cargo size or map alternate buyers before movement
|
||||
```
|
||||
|
||||
For Secundus, the problem is not only price. It is whether the route can still absorb the load.
|
||||
|
||||
---
|
||||
|
||||
## 8. Publius Terentius Chresimus — Guild Scribe
|
||||
|
||||
Chresimus reads the lost buyer through accounts, balances, and payment history.
|
||||
|
||||
He asks:
|
||||
|
||||
- did the buyer owe anything?
|
||||
- were prior payments clean?
|
||||
- is there an unpaid balance hidden behind the refusal?
|
||||
- were quantities disputed before?
|
||||
- does the account show trust decline?
|
||||
- should the buyer be marked unreliable or merely inactive?
|
||||
|
||||
Chresimus wants to know whether the loss was already visible in the records.
|
||||
|
||||
### Chresimus Interpretation
|
||||
|
||||
```text
|
||||
lost buyer: account relationship changed
|
||||
primary question: what do prior payments, disputes, and balances reveal?
|
||||
risk focus: unpaid balance, stale claim, false assumption of buyer reliability
|
||||
first action: reconcile buyer account before deciding whether to repair or replace
|
||||
```
|
||||
|
||||
For Chresimus, a buyer is not lost only when he says no. The account may have been weakening earlier.
|
||||
|
||||
---
|
||||
|
||||
## 9. Same Lost Buyer, Different First Actions
|
||||
|
||||
| Actor | First Action |
|
||||
|---|---|
|
||||
| Varro | confirm a reliable receiving endpoint |
|
||||
| Felix | determine whether refusal is real, bargaining, or rival capture |
|
||||
| Lentulus | identify the social cause and repair or replace access |
|
||||
| Crispus | examine whether a commitment was broken |
|
||||
| Secundus | reduce shipment or map alternate demand capacity |
|
||||
| Chresimus | reconcile buyer account and payment history |
|
||||
|
||||
The buyer loss is the same.
|
||||
|
||||
The recovery path differs.
|
||||
|
||||
---
|
||||
|
||||
## 10. Correct Model Behavior
|
||||
|
||||
The model should separate:
|
||||
|
||||
| Category | Meaning |
|
||||
|---|---|
|
||||
| buyer_status | no longer buying |
|
||||
| known_reason | what is actually known about why |
|
||||
| hidden_reason | true cause if not yet known |
|
||||
| arithmetic effect | lower or uncertain sale value |
|
||||
| access effect | destination relationship weakened |
|
||||
| actor lens | how each actor diagnoses the loss |
|
||||
| recovery path | how each actor seeks replacement or repair |
|
||||
|
||||
A buyer is an economic relationship, not just a sale price.
|
||||
|
||||
---
|
||||
|
||||
## 11. Incorrect Model Behavior
|
||||
|
||||
The model should not:
|
||||
|
||||
- treat a lost buyer as only a lower sale price
|
||||
- assume the reason is known without evidence
|
||||
- ignore rival capture
|
||||
- ignore reputation effects
|
||||
- ignore prior obligations or deposits
|
||||
- ignore alternate buyers or reduced cargo
|
||||
- make all actors seek the same replacement
|
||||
- keep old route arithmetic after the buyer disappears
|
||||
|
||||
---
|
||||
|
||||
## 12. Layer-0, Layer-1, And Layer-2 Concepts Used
|
||||
|
||||
This example uses:
|
||||
|
||||
- `Layer_0/CORPUS-0002-goods-have-local-prices`
|
||||
- `Layer_0/CORPUS-0005-profit-is-sale-minus-total-cost`
|
||||
- `Layer_0/CORPUS-0007-information-arrives-unevenly`
|
||||
- `Layer_0/CORPUS-0010-credit-depends-on-trust`
|
||||
- `Layer_0/CORPUS-0011-status-changes-access`
|
||||
- `Layer_0/CORPUS-0012-every-venture-risks-loss`
|
||||
- `Layer_0/CORPUS-0018-rivalry-changes-conditions`
|
||||
- `Layer_0/CORPUS-0020-posture-changes-by-audience`
|
||||
- `Layer_1/CORPUS-0012-reputation-loss-changes-future-arithmetic`
|
||||
- `Layer_2/CORPUS-0005-hidden-true-state-vs-known-state`
|
||||
- `Layer_2/CORPUS-0010-information-can-be-withheld`
|
||||
- `Layer_2/CORPUS-0012-settlement-reveals-truth`
|
||||
|
||||
---
|
||||
|
||||
## 13. Success Condition
|
||||
|
||||
If the model can treat loss of a buyer as a change in access, confidence, route viability, settlement path, and future arithmetic while producing six distinct rational readings, this file is functioning correctly.
|
||||
Reference in New Issue
Block a user