obsolete
This commit is contained in:
@@ -1,236 +0,0 @@
|
||||
# CORPUS-0011
|
||||
## Round-Trip Cart Value
|
||||
### Status: Training Corpus Seed
|
||||
### Layer: Layer_1--Worked_Examples
|
||||
### Purpose: Teach that transport capacity may create value in both directions, and that a route should not always be evaluated as a one-way movement
|
||||
### Repository Path: docs/training/corpus/Layer_1--Worked_Examples/CORPUS-0011-round-trip-cart-value.md
|
||||
|
||||
---
|
||||
|
||||
## 0. Scenario
|
||||
|
||||
A trader in Ostia wants to send goods to Capua.
|
||||
|
||||
A cart from Capua has already arrived in Ostia carrying raw material.
|
||||
|
||||
The cart must return to Capua.
|
||||
|
||||
If the trader can load the return trip, the cart owner avoids travelling empty, and the trader may obtain better terms.
|
||||
|
||||
The same physical journey can carry value in both directions.
|
||||
|
||||
---
|
||||
|
||||
## 1. One-Way Assumption
|
||||
|
||||
A weak model may treat transport as a simple one-way purchase:
|
||||
|
||||
```text
|
||||
Ostia -> Capua cart hire = 10 asses
|
||||
```
|
||||
|
||||
If the trader must pay the whole hire, the cost may erase profit.
|
||||
|
||||
But if the cart already needs to return to Capua, the trader may only need to pay for unused return capacity.
|
||||
|
||||
The cart's prior movement matters.
|
||||
|
||||
---
|
||||
|
||||
## 2. Known Facts
|
||||
|
||||
| Fact | Value |
|
||||
|---|---:|
|
||||
| Cart origin | Capua |
|
||||
| Cart current location | Ostia |
|
||||
| Cart must return to Capua | yes |
|
||||
| Normal one-way hire Ostia -> Capua | 10 asses |
|
||||
| Reduced return-leg rate | 5 asses |
|
||||
| Trader's cargo value in Ostia | 20 asses |
|
||||
| Expected sale value in Capua | 32 asses |
|
||||
| Other handling costs | 3 asses |
|
||||
|
||||
---
|
||||
|
||||
## 3. One-Way Calculation
|
||||
|
||||
If the trader pays full one-way hire:
|
||||
|
||||
```text
|
||||
purchase value: 20 asses
|
||||
cart hire: 10 asses
|
||||
other handling: 3 asses
|
||||
------------------------------
|
||||
total cost: 33 asses
|
||||
sale value: 32 asses
|
||||
result: 1 as loss
|
||||
```
|
||||
|
||||
The venture fails by arithmetic.
|
||||
|
||||
---
|
||||
|
||||
## 4. Return-Leg Calculation
|
||||
|
||||
If the trader uses the cart's required return trip:
|
||||
|
||||
```text
|
||||
purchase value: 20 asses
|
||||
return-leg rate: 5 asses
|
||||
other handling: 3 asses
|
||||
------------------------------
|
||||
total cost: 28 asses
|
||||
sale value: 32 asses
|
||||
result: 4 asses profit
|
||||
```
|
||||
|
||||
The same cargo and destination become viable because transport capacity was already moving.
|
||||
|
||||
---
|
||||
|
||||
## 5. Why The Cart Owner Accepts
|
||||
|
||||
The cart owner may accept the reduced return-leg rate because:
|
||||
|
||||
- the cart must return to Capua anyway
|
||||
- empty return earns nothing
|
||||
- the load offsets animal feed and driver time
|
||||
- the trader pays promptly
|
||||
- the trader may offer repeat business
|
||||
- the cargo is easy to handle
|
||||
|
||||
The reduced rate is not generosity.
|
||||
|
||||
It is shared use of existing movement.
|
||||
|
||||
---
|
||||
|
||||
## 6. Round-Trip Exchange Variant
|
||||
|
||||
The arrangement may include value in both directions:
|
||||
|
||||
### Capua -> Ostia
|
||||
|
||||
The cart brings:
|
||||
|
||||
- raw timber
|
||||
- wool
|
||||
- charcoal
|
||||
- agricultural goods
|
||||
- workshop material
|
||||
|
||||
### Ostia -> Capua
|
||||
|
||||
The cart returns with:
|
||||
|
||||
- oil
|
||||
- imported goods
|
||||
- tools
|
||||
- household supplies
|
||||
- finished stock
|
||||
- letters or documents
|
||||
|
||||
Each leg may serve a different party.
|
||||
|
||||
The trader may profit not by owning the cart, but by understanding that the cart should not return empty.
|
||||
|
||||
---
|
||||
|
||||
## 7. Household Supply Variant
|
||||
|
||||
The return cargo may not all be market cargo.
|
||||
|
||||
A Capua cart owner may ask to carry supplies for his household:
|
||||
|
||||
- oil
|
||||
- fish sauce
|
||||
- cloth
|
||||
- tools
|
||||
- small luxury items
|
||||
- medicines or prepared goods
|
||||
|
||||
These goods may partly settle the transport agreement.
|
||||
|
||||
This creates a mixed exchange:
|
||||
|
||||
```text
|
||||
cash payment
|
||||
+ goods carried for household use
|
||||
+ future hauling preference
|
||||
```
|
||||
|
||||
The model should not treat household supply as irrelevant.
|
||||
|
||||
It can be part of the transport bargain.
|
||||
|
||||
---
|
||||
|
||||
## 8. Risks Of Linked Legs
|
||||
|
||||
A round-trip arrangement can fail because either leg fails.
|
||||
|
||||
Risk examples:
|
||||
|
||||
- inbound cargo arrives late
|
||||
- cart needs repair before return
|
||||
- animals are tired
|
||||
- driver changes terms after arrival
|
||||
- outbound cargo is not ready
|
||||
- return cargo is heavier than expected
|
||||
- goods for household use are disputed in value
|
||||
- delay on first leg destroys profit on second leg
|
||||
|
||||
A round-trip plan may reduce cost, but it increases dependency between events.
|
||||
|
||||
---
|
||||
|
||||
## 9. Correct Model Behavior
|
||||
|
||||
The model should ask:
|
||||
|
||||
- does the cart need to return anyway?
|
||||
- is return capacity empty?
|
||||
- who controls the cart?
|
||||
- what did the cart carry inbound?
|
||||
- what can it carry outbound?
|
||||
- does return cargo reduce effective transport cost?
|
||||
- are cash, goods, and future obligations combined?
|
||||
- what risks link the two legs?
|
||||
|
||||
Transport is not only a price.
|
||||
|
||||
It is moving capacity across time and direction.
|
||||
|
||||
---
|
||||
|
||||
## 10. Incorrect Model Behavior
|
||||
|
||||
The model should not:
|
||||
|
||||
- treat every cart hire as isolated one-way cost
|
||||
- ignore why the cart is already in Ostia
|
||||
- ignore empty return capacity
|
||||
- ignore household supply as value
|
||||
- assume reduced rate is unexplained discount
|
||||
- ignore linked-leg risk
|
||||
- calculate each leg without considering the whole movement
|
||||
|
||||
---
|
||||
|
||||
## 11. Layer-0 Concepts Used
|
||||
|
||||
This example uses:
|
||||
|
||||
- `CORPUS-0001-trade-requires-two-locations`
|
||||
- `CORPUS-0004-cost-includes-more-than-purchase-price`
|
||||
- `CORPUS-0005-profit-is-sale-minus-total-cost`
|
||||
- `CORPUS-0006-delay-is-economic-cost`
|
||||
- `CORPUS-0009-liquidity-differs-from-wealth`
|
||||
- `CORPUS-0013-non-coin-settlement-exists`
|
||||
- `CORPUS-0018-rivalry-changes-conditions`
|
||||
|
||||
---
|
||||
|
||||
## 12. Success Condition
|
||||
|
||||
If the model sees a cart moving between two cities and asks whether both directions can carry value before calculating transport cost, this file is functioning correctly.
|
||||
Reference in New Issue
Block a user