initial upload
This commit is contained in:
@@ -0,0 +1,145 @@
|
||||
# CORPUS-0011
|
||||
## Status Changes Access
|
||||
### Status: Training Corpus Seed
|
||||
### Layer: Layer_0--Primitive_Facts
|
||||
### Purpose: Teach that markets, officials, credit, and information are not equally accessible to all actors
|
||||
### Repository Path: docs/training/corpus/Layer_0--Primitive_Facts/CORPUS-0011-status-changes-access.md
|
||||
|
||||
---
|
||||
|
||||
<!-- chunk:
|
||||
id: CORPUS-0011::01::principle
|
||||
source_file: CORPUS-0011-status-changes-access.md
|
||||
repository_path: docs/training/corpus/Layer_0--Primitive_Facts/CORPUS-0011-status-changes-access.md
|
||||
domain: commerce
|
||||
layer: Layer_0--Primitive_Facts
|
||||
document_id: CORPUS-0011
|
||||
document_title: Status Changes Access
|
||||
section_heading: 0. Principle + 1. Roman-Visible Example + 2. Minimal Access Structure
|
||||
...
|
||||
chunk_role: principle
|
||||
concept_tags:
|
||||
- status
|
||||
- changes
|
||||
- access
|
||||
- principle
|
||||
- primitive_facts
|
||||
knowledge_state:
|
||||
- actor_visible
|
||||
- inferred
|
||||
actors: []
|
||||
-->
|
||||
|
||||
## 0. Principle
|
||||
|
||||
Status changes access.
|
||||
|
||||
Two traders may have the same coin, goods, and plan, but receive different treatment.
|
||||
|
||||
Access may depend on:
|
||||
|
||||
- reputation
|
||||
- family name
|
||||
- citizenship
|
||||
- prior service
|
||||
- occupation
|
||||
- patronage
|
||||
- literacy
|
||||
- witnesses
|
||||
- public trust
|
||||
- social prejudice
|
||||
|
||||
The market is not entered equally by every actor.
|
||||
|
||||
---
|
||||
|
||||
## 1. Roman-Visible Example
|
||||
|
||||
A noble younger son asks to speak with a warehouse official.
|
||||
|
||||
He is received quickly because his family name carries weight.
|
||||
|
||||
A freedman trader asks the same question.
|
||||
|
||||
He may wait longer, be asked for proof, or receive less favorable terms.
|
||||
|
||||
The information may be the same.
|
||||
|
||||
The access is not.
|
||||
|
||||
---
|
||||
|
||||
## 2. Minimal Access Structure
|
||||
|
||||
Access depends on at least:
|
||||
|
||||
1. actor identity
|
||||
2. public reputation
|
||||
3. social rank
|
||||
4. trusted introductions
|
||||
5. legal standing
|
||||
6. prior relationships
|
||||
7. perceived reliability
|
||||
8. the gatekeeper's interests
|
||||
|
||||
Access is a relationship, not a universal right.
|
||||
|
||||
---
|
||||
|
||||
## 3. Incorrect Modern Assumption
|
||||
|
||||
Incorrect assumption:
|
||||
|
||||
> Any trader can approach the same person, receive the same answer, and make the same deal.
|
||||
|
||||
Correction:
|
||||
|
||||
> The same request may produce different outcomes depending on who asks, who hears, and what relationship exists between them.
|
||||
|
||||
---
|
||||
|
||||
## 4. Simulation Use
|
||||
|
||||
This principle supports:
|
||||
|
||||
- auctoritas
|
||||
- fama
|
||||
- clientela
|
||||
- ius_accessus
|
||||
- queue priority
|
||||
- credit access
|
||||
- rumor credibility
|
||||
- legal enforceability
|
||||
- background asymmetry
|
||||
|
||||
The model should not treat every actor as having identical access to people, places, or remedies.
|
||||
|
||||
---
|
||||
|
||||
## 5. Canonical Test
|
||||
|
||||
If the model sees:
|
||||
|
||||
> The trader asks the official for access to warehouse records.
|
||||
|
||||
It must ask:
|
||||
|
||||
- who is the trader?
|
||||
- what is his reputation?
|
||||
- does he have an introduction?
|
||||
- does the official benefit by helping him?
|
||||
- does his status speed or slow the request?
|
||||
- is a witness required?
|
||||
- would another actor receive a different answer?
|
||||
|
||||
Only then can the action be evaluated.
|
||||
|
||||
---
|
||||
|
||||
## 6. Success Condition
|
||||
|
||||
If the model stops treating access as automatic and starts treating access as shaped by status, reputation, and relationships, this file is functioning correctly.
|
||||
|
||||
<!-- /chunk -->
|
||||
|
||||
---
|
||||
@@ -0,0 +1,157 @@
|
||||
# CORPUS-0012
|
||||
## Every Venture Risks Loss
|
||||
### Status: Training Corpus Seed
|
||||
### Layer: Layer_0--Primitive_Facts
|
||||
### Purpose: Teach that every commercial action can fail through price change, delay, damage, bad information, or unmet obligations
|
||||
### Repository Path: docs/training/corpus/Layer_0--Primitive_Facts/CORPUS-0012-every-venture-risks-loss.md
|
||||
|
||||
---
|
||||
|
||||
<!-- chunk:
|
||||
id: CORPUS-0012::01::principle
|
||||
source_file: CORPUS-0012-every-venture-risks-loss.md
|
||||
repository_path: docs/training/corpus/Layer_0--Primitive_Facts/CORPUS-0012-every-venture-risks-loss.md
|
||||
domain: commerce
|
||||
layer: Layer_0--Primitive_Facts
|
||||
document_id: CORPUS-0012
|
||||
document_title: Every Venture Risks Loss
|
||||
section_heading: 0. Principle + 1. Roman-Visible Example + 2. Minimal Risk Structure
|
||||
...
|
||||
chunk_role: principle
|
||||
concept_tags:
|
||||
- every
|
||||
- venture
|
||||
- risks
|
||||
- loss
|
||||
- principle
|
||||
- primitive_facts
|
||||
knowledge_state:
|
||||
- actor_visible
|
||||
- inferred
|
||||
actors: []
|
||||
-->
|
||||
|
||||
## 0. Principle
|
||||
|
||||
Every venture risks loss.
|
||||
|
||||
A trader may plan well and still lose value.
|
||||
|
||||
Loss can come from:
|
||||
|
||||
- price changes
|
||||
- delay
|
||||
- spoilage
|
||||
- breakage
|
||||
- theft
|
||||
- bad information
|
||||
- failed credit
|
||||
- blocked access
|
||||
- higher-than-expected costs
|
||||
- buyer refusal
|
||||
- route disruption
|
||||
|
||||
A venture is not safe because it looks profitable at the start.
|
||||
|
||||
---
|
||||
|
||||
## 1. Roman-Visible Example
|
||||
|
||||
A trader buys oil in Ostia to sell in Capua.
|
||||
|
||||
The expected sale price is good.
|
||||
|
||||
But before sale:
|
||||
|
||||
- the cart is delayed
|
||||
- one amphora leaks
|
||||
- another trader arrives first
|
||||
- Capua buyers lower their offers
|
||||
- storage costs rise
|
||||
- the buyer who promised purchase cannot pay
|
||||
|
||||
The trader did not make a foolish plan.
|
||||
|
||||
The venture still risks loss because the world changed before settlement.
|
||||
|
||||
---
|
||||
|
||||
## 2. Minimal Risk Structure
|
||||
|
||||
A venture has risk wherever something can change between decision and result.
|
||||
|
||||
At minimum, risk depends on:
|
||||
|
||||
1. time in motion
|
||||
2. route reliability
|
||||
3. price uncertainty
|
||||
4. information quality
|
||||
5. storage quality
|
||||
6. buyer reliability
|
||||
7. cost uncertainty
|
||||
8. actor access and reputation
|
||||
|
||||
No venture is complete until settlement occurs.
|
||||
|
||||
---
|
||||
|
||||
## 3. Incorrect Modern Assumption
|
||||
|
||||
Incorrect assumption:
|
||||
|
||||
> If the planned sale price is higher than the purchase price, the venture is safe.
|
||||
|
||||
Correction:
|
||||
|
||||
> A venture is only safe after costs are paid, goods or claims are settled, and obligations are fulfilled.
|
||||
|
||||
Expected profit is not actual profit.
|
||||
|
||||
---
|
||||
|
||||
## 4. Simulation Use
|
||||
|
||||
This principle supports:
|
||||
|
||||
- venture risk
|
||||
- loss events
|
||||
- delayed settlement
|
||||
- price movement
|
||||
- damaged goods
|
||||
- unreliable buyers
|
||||
- insurance-like behavior where historically appropriate
|
||||
- diversification
|
||||
- cautious versus aggressive actors
|
||||
|
||||
The model should not treat a venture as guaranteed because its starting arithmetic is favorable.
|
||||
|
||||
---
|
||||
|
||||
## 5. Canonical Test
|
||||
|
||||
If the model sees:
|
||||
|
||||
> The trader expects to earn 5 asses.
|
||||
|
||||
It must ask:
|
||||
|
||||
- what can go wrong before settlement?
|
||||
- how reliable is the route?
|
||||
- how certain is the destination price?
|
||||
- can the buyer pay?
|
||||
- can costs increase?
|
||||
- can goods be damaged?
|
||||
- is the information current?
|
||||
- when does expected profit become actual profit?
|
||||
|
||||
Only then can the venture be evaluated.
|
||||
|
||||
---
|
||||
|
||||
## 6. Success Condition
|
||||
|
||||
If the model stops treating expected profit as guaranteed and starts treating every venture as exposed to change before settlement, this file is functioning correctly.
|
||||
|
||||
<!-- /chunk -->
|
||||
|
||||
---
|
||||
@@ -0,0 +1,148 @@
|
||||
# CORPUS-0013
|
||||
## Non-Coin Settlement Exists
|
||||
### Status: Training Corpus Seed
|
||||
### Layer: Layer_0--Primitive_Facts
|
||||
### Purpose: Teach that economic exchange can be settled through goods, labor, credit, obligation, or favor, not only through coins
|
||||
### Repository Path: docs/training/corpus/Layer_0--Primitive_Facts/CORPUS-0013-non-coin-settlement-exists.md
|
||||
|
||||
---
|
||||
|
||||
<!-- chunk:
|
||||
id: CORPUS-0013::01::principle
|
||||
source_file: CORPUS-0013-non-coin-settlement-exists.md
|
||||
repository_path: docs/training/corpus/Layer_0--Primitive_Facts/CORPUS-0013-non-coin-settlement-exists.md
|
||||
domain: commerce
|
||||
layer: Layer_0--Primitive_Facts
|
||||
document_id: CORPUS-0013
|
||||
document_title: Non-Coin Settlement Exists
|
||||
section_heading: 0. Principle + 1. Roman-Visible Example + 2. Minimal Non-Coin Settlement
|
||||
Structure ...
|
||||
chunk_role: principle
|
||||
concept_tags:
|
||||
- non
|
||||
- coin
|
||||
- settlement
|
||||
- exists
|
||||
- principle
|
||||
- primitive_facts
|
||||
knowledge_state:
|
||||
- actor_visible
|
||||
- inferred
|
||||
actors: []
|
||||
-->
|
||||
|
||||
## 0. Principle
|
||||
|
||||
Coins are not the only way to settle an exchange.
|
||||
|
||||
An obligation may be settled through:
|
||||
|
||||
- coin
|
||||
- goods
|
||||
- labor
|
||||
- service
|
||||
- credit
|
||||
- future delivery
|
||||
- debt cancellation
|
||||
- favor
|
||||
- access
|
||||
- introduction
|
||||
|
||||
No coin changing hands does not mean no economic exchange occurred.
|
||||
|
||||
---
|
||||
|
||||
## 1. Roman-Visible Example
|
||||
|
||||
A trader needs a cart repaired before sending goods to Capua.
|
||||
|
||||
He has little coin available.
|
||||
|
||||
The wheelwright agrees to repair the cart in exchange for:
|
||||
|
||||
- a small quantity of oil
|
||||
- future hauling priority
|
||||
- a promise of payment after the next sale
|
||||
- an introduction to a warehouse contact
|
||||
|
||||
The repair still has economic value.
|
||||
|
||||
The settlement is not pure coin, but it is still a transaction.
|
||||
|
||||
---
|
||||
|
||||
## 2. Minimal Non-Coin Settlement Structure
|
||||
|
||||
A non-coin settlement requires at least:
|
||||
|
||||
1. two parties
|
||||
2. something owed or desired
|
||||
3. a substitute form of value
|
||||
4. mutual acceptance
|
||||
5. timing of performance
|
||||
6. trust or enforceability
|
||||
7. record, witness, or memory where needed
|
||||
|
||||
Non-coin settlement works only when the parties accept the value being offered.
|
||||
|
||||
---
|
||||
|
||||
## 3. Incorrect Modern Assumption
|
||||
|
||||
Incorrect assumption:
|
||||
|
||||
> If no money is paid, nothing economic happened.
|
||||
|
||||
Correction:
|
||||
|
||||
> Economic value can move through goods, labor, obligations, favors, or future claims even when no coin is exchanged.
|
||||
|
||||
---
|
||||
|
||||
## 4. Simulation Use
|
||||
|
||||
This principle supports:
|
||||
|
||||
- barter
|
||||
- partial payment
|
||||
- deferred payment
|
||||
- favors owed
|
||||
- labor exchange
|
||||
- credit
|
||||
- obligation tracking
|
||||
- patronage
|
||||
- distressed settlement
|
||||
- relationship-based trade
|
||||
|
||||
The model should not treat coin as the only valid settlement medium.
|
||||
|
||||
---
|
||||
|
||||
## 5. Canonical Test
|
||||
|
||||
If the model sees:
|
||||
|
||||
> No coins changed hands.
|
||||
|
||||
It must ask:
|
||||
|
||||
- did goods change hands?
|
||||
- was labor performed?
|
||||
- was a debt reduced?
|
||||
- was future payment promised?
|
||||
- was a favor created?
|
||||
- was access granted?
|
||||
- was a relationship strengthened or weakened?
|
||||
- was the exchange witnessed or remembered?
|
||||
|
||||
Only then can the transaction be understood.
|
||||
|
||||
---
|
||||
|
||||
## 6. Success Condition
|
||||
|
||||
If the model stops treating coin payment as the only form of exchange and starts tracking how obligations are created, changed, or settled, this file is functioning correctly.
|
||||
|
||||
<!-- /chunk -->
|
||||
|
||||
---
|
||||
@@ -0,0 +1,151 @@
|
||||
# CORPUS-0014
|
||||
## Windfall Value Exists
|
||||
### Status: Training Corpus Seed
|
||||
### Layer: Layer_0--Primitive_Facts
|
||||
### Purpose: Teach that economic capacity can enter an actor's control through sudden or irregular events, not only through labor, trade, or credit
|
||||
### Repository Path: docs/training/corpus/Layer_0--Primitive_Facts/CORPUS-0014-windfall-value-exists.md
|
||||
|
||||
---
|
||||
|
||||
<!-- chunk:
|
||||
id: CORPUS-0014::01::principle
|
||||
source_file: CORPUS-0014-windfall-value-exists.md
|
||||
repository_path: docs/training/corpus/Layer_0--Primitive_Facts/CORPUS-0014-windfall-value-exists.md
|
||||
domain: commerce
|
||||
layer: Layer_0--Primitive_Facts
|
||||
document_id: CORPUS-0014
|
||||
document_title: Windfall Value Exists
|
||||
section_heading: 0. Principle + 1. Roman-Visible Example + 2. Minimal Windfall Structure
|
||||
...
|
||||
chunk_role: principle
|
||||
concept_tags:
|
||||
- windfall
|
||||
- value
|
||||
- exists
|
||||
- principle
|
||||
- primitive_facts
|
||||
knowledge_state:
|
||||
- actor_visible
|
||||
- inferred
|
||||
actors: []
|
||||
-->
|
||||
|
||||
## 0. Principle
|
||||
|
||||
Not all value is earned gradually.
|
||||
|
||||
An actor may gain usable value through a windfall.
|
||||
|
||||
A windfall is value that enters an actor's control unexpectedly or irregularly.
|
||||
|
||||
Examples include:
|
||||
|
||||
- inheritance
|
||||
- gift
|
||||
- patron support
|
||||
- returned debt
|
||||
- settlement award
|
||||
- discovered goods
|
||||
- unplanned surplus
|
||||
- cancelled obligation
|
||||
|
||||
A windfall may increase opportunity, but it may also create obligations, disputes, expectations, or risk.
|
||||
|
||||
---
|
||||
|
||||
## 1. Roman-Visible Example
|
||||
|
||||
A trader receives notice that a relative has died and left him a share of stored oil.
|
||||
|
||||
The trader did not buy the oil.
|
||||
He did not transport it.
|
||||
He did not earn it through labor.
|
||||
|
||||
Yet the oil now affects his economic position.
|
||||
|
||||
He may sell it, pledge it, store it, move it, or use it to settle another obligation.
|
||||
|
||||
But others may also have claims, expectations, or objections.
|
||||
|
||||
---
|
||||
|
||||
## 2. Minimal Windfall Structure
|
||||
|
||||
A windfall requires at least:
|
||||
|
||||
1. value entering control
|
||||
2. source of transfer
|
||||
3. timing of availability
|
||||
4. proof or recognition of claim
|
||||
5. possible competing claims
|
||||
6. cost of converting value into use
|
||||
7. social or legal consequence
|
||||
|
||||
A windfall is not complete merely because value is named.
|
||||
|
||||
The actor must be able to control or convert it.
|
||||
|
||||
---
|
||||
|
||||
## 3. Incorrect Modern Assumption
|
||||
|
||||
Incorrect assumption:
|
||||
|
||||
> A windfall is simply free wealth.
|
||||
|
||||
Correction:
|
||||
|
||||
> A windfall may increase resources, but it can also bring delay, dispute, obligation, status pressure, or conversion cost.
|
||||
|
||||
An inheritance may be valuable but locked.
|
||||
A gift may create obligation.
|
||||
A discovered good may have uncertain ownership.
|
||||
|
||||
---
|
||||
|
||||
## 4. Simulation Use
|
||||
|
||||
This principle supports:
|
||||
|
||||
- inheritance
|
||||
- gifts
|
||||
- patron support
|
||||
- returned debts
|
||||
- settlement outcomes
|
||||
- sudden liquidity
|
||||
- disputed claims
|
||||
- asset conversion
|
||||
- obligation tracking
|
||||
- actor background asymmetry
|
||||
|
||||
The model should not treat all economic gains as trade profit.
|
||||
|
||||
---
|
||||
|
||||
## 5. Canonical Test
|
||||
|
||||
If the model sees:
|
||||
|
||||
> The trader receives a valuable asset unexpectedly.
|
||||
|
||||
It must ask:
|
||||
|
||||
- what is the source of the value?
|
||||
- is the claim recognized?
|
||||
- can the asset be used immediately?
|
||||
- are there competing claimants?
|
||||
- does accepting it create obligation?
|
||||
- must it be converted into coin or goods?
|
||||
- does the windfall change reputation or access?
|
||||
|
||||
Only then can the windfall be understood.
|
||||
|
||||
---
|
||||
|
||||
## 6. Success Condition
|
||||
|
||||
If the model stops treating all gains as earned profit and starts recognizing irregular value transfers with obligations, delays, and claims, this file is functioning correctly.
|
||||
|
||||
<!-- /chunk -->
|
||||
|
||||
---
|
||||
@@ -0,0 +1,154 @@
|
||||
# CORPUS-0015
|
||||
## Materials Can Change Value Through Use
|
||||
### Status: Training Corpus Seed
|
||||
### Layer: Layer_0--Primitive_Facts
|
||||
### Purpose: Teach that a material's value depends partly on what it can become, not only on what it is now
|
||||
### Repository Path: docs/training/corpus/Layer_0--Primitive_Facts/CORPUS-0015-materials-can-change-value-through-use.md
|
||||
|
||||
---
|
||||
|
||||
<!-- chunk:
|
||||
id: CORPUS-0015::01::principle
|
||||
source_file: CORPUS-0015-materials-can-change-value-through-use.md
|
||||
repository_path: docs/training/corpus/Layer_0--Primitive_Facts/CORPUS-0015-materials-can-change-value-through-use.md
|
||||
domain: commerce
|
||||
layer: Layer_0--Primitive_Facts
|
||||
document_id: CORPUS-0015
|
||||
document_title: Materials Can Change Value Through Use
|
||||
section_heading: 0. Principle + 1. Roman-Visible Example + 2. Minimal Use-Value Structure
|
||||
...
|
||||
chunk_role: principle
|
||||
concept_tags:
|
||||
- materials
|
||||
- change
|
||||
- value
|
||||
- use
|
||||
- principle
|
||||
- primitive_facts
|
||||
knowledge_state:
|
||||
- actor_visible
|
||||
- inferred
|
||||
actors: []
|
||||
-->
|
||||
|
||||
## 0. Principle
|
||||
|
||||
A material's value depends partly on its possible uses.
|
||||
|
||||
The same raw material can have different value depending on:
|
||||
|
||||
- who needs it
|
||||
- what it can become
|
||||
- how soon it is needed
|
||||
- what tools or skill are available
|
||||
- what other materials are scarce
|
||||
- whether the intended use changes
|
||||
|
||||
A plank is not only a plank.
|
||||
|
||||
It may become a roof beam, cart repair, tool handle, bridge part, hull plank, scaffold, crate, or military component.
|
||||
|
||||
---
|
||||
|
||||
## 1. Roman-Visible Example
|
||||
|
||||
A trader sees timber stored for ordinary construction.
|
||||
|
||||
Then he hears that carts are breaking, boats need repair, and a contractor is seeking straight dry boards.
|
||||
|
||||
The timber has not changed physically.
|
||||
|
||||
But its value may change because its best use has changed.
|
||||
|
||||
Construction timber may become more valuable if redirected into:
|
||||
|
||||
- cart parts
|
||||
- wheel stock
|
||||
- ship repair
|
||||
- bridge repair
|
||||
- tool handles
|
||||
- temporary structures
|
||||
|
||||
The material's future use alters its present value.
|
||||
|
||||
---
|
||||
|
||||
## 2. Minimal Use-Value Structure
|
||||
|
||||
Material value depends on at least:
|
||||
|
||||
1. material type
|
||||
2. quality
|
||||
3. quantity
|
||||
4. current owner
|
||||
5. possible uses
|
||||
6. scarcity of substitutes
|
||||
7. available craftsmen
|
||||
8. urgency of demand
|
||||
9. cost of transformation
|
||||
10. distance to the buyer or workshop
|
||||
|
||||
A material's value is not fixed only by its original purpose.
|
||||
|
||||
---
|
||||
|
||||
## 3. Incorrect Modern Assumption
|
||||
|
||||
Incorrect assumption:
|
||||
|
||||
> A material has one value because it has one intended use.
|
||||
|
||||
Correction:
|
||||
|
||||
> A material may gain or lose value when conditions make another use more urgent, scarce, or profitable.
|
||||
|
||||
The trader must ask not only what the material is, but what it can become.
|
||||
|
||||
---
|
||||
|
||||
## 4. Simulation Use
|
||||
|
||||
This principle supports:
|
||||
|
||||
- raw material valuation
|
||||
- substitution
|
||||
- production chains
|
||||
- emergency demand
|
||||
- scenario chaining
|
||||
- workshop shortages
|
||||
- military or civic procurement
|
||||
- route cargo selection
|
||||
- speculative buying
|
||||
|
||||
The model should not treat goods as locked permanently to their original category.
|
||||
|
||||
---
|
||||
|
||||
## 5. Canonical Test
|
||||
|
||||
If the model sees:
|
||||
|
||||
> Timber is stored for construction.
|
||||
|
||||
It must ask:
|
||||
|
||||
- what quality is the timber?
|
||||
- is it dry or green?
|
||||
- is it straight, curved, thick, or narrow?
|
||||
- what else can it become?
|
||||
- who urgently needs that alternate use?
|
||||
- what craftsmen can transform it?
|
||||
- what would transformation cost?
|
||||
- is the alternate use worth more than the original use?
|
||||
|
||||
Only then can the material's value be evaluated.
|
||||
|
||||
---
|
||||
|
||||
## 6. Success Condition
|
||||
|
||||
If the model stops treating materials as single-purpose goods and starts evaluating what they can become under current conditions, this file is functioning correctly.
|
||||
|
||||
<!-- /chunk -->
|
||||
|
||||
---
|
||||
Reference in New Issue
Block a user