initial upload
This commit is contained in:
@@ -0,0 +1,151 @@
|
|||||||
|
# CORPUS-0016
|
||||||
|
## Opportunistic Bargains Come From Pressure
|
||||||
|
### Status: Training Corpus Seed
|
||||||
|
### Layer: Layer_0--Primitive_Facts
|
||||||
|
### Purpose: Teach that lawful bargains often appear when one party faces time, liquidity, storage, or information pressure
|
||||||
|
### Repository Path: docs/training/corpus/Layer_0--Primitive_Facts/CORPUS-0016-opportunistic-bargains-come-from-pressure.md
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
|
---
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
|
<!-- chunk:
|
||||||
|
id: CORPUS-0016::01::principle
|
||||||
|
source_file: CORPUS-0016-opportunistic-bargains-come-from-pressure.md
|
||||||
|
repository_path: docs/training/corpus/Layer_0--Primitive_Facts/CORPUS-0016-opportunistic-bargains-come-from-pressure.md
|
||||||
|
domain: commerce
|
||||||
|
layer: Layer_0--Primitive_Facts
|
||||||
|
document_id: CORPUS-0016
|
||||||
|
document_title: Opportunistic Bargains Come From Pressure
|
||||||
|
section_heading: 0. Principle + 1. Roman-Visible Example + 2. Minimal Bargain Structure
|
||||||
|
...
|
||||||
|
chunk_role: principle
|
||||||
|
concept_tags:
|
||||||
|
- opportunistic
|
||||||
|
- bargains
|
||||||
|
- come
|
||||||
|
- pressure
|
||||||
|
- principle
|
||||||
|
- primitive_facts
|
||||||
|
knowledge_state:
|
||||||
|
- actor_visible
|
||||||
|
- inferred
|
||||||
|
actors: []
|
||||||
|
-->
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
|
## 0. Principle
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
|
A bargain often appears because one party is under pressure.
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
|
A seller may accept less than expected because he needs:
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
|
- coin now
|
||||||
|
- storage cleared
|
||||||
|
- debt settled
|
||||||
|
- goods moved before spoilage
|
||||||
|
- transport capacity freed
|
||||||
|
- a buyer before news changes
|
||||||
|
- a dispute avoided
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
|
A buyer may accept worse terms because he needs goods quickly.
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
|
Opportunity often comes from pressure, not from generosity.
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
|
---
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
|
## 1. Roman-Visible Example
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
|
A trader sees a warehouse owner offering oil below the usual local price.
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
|
The oil may not be poor quality.
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
|
The owner may simply need space cleared before a grain shipment arrives.
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
|
The low price comes from pressure:
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
|
- storage pressure
|
||||||
|
- timing pressure
|
||||||
|
- incoming cargo
|
||||||
|
- need for ready coin
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
|
The bargain is lawful, but it exists because conditions changed.
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
|
---
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
|
## 2. Minimal Bargain Structure
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
|
An opportunistic bargain requires at least:
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
|
1. one party under pressure
|
||||||
|
2. an asset, good, service, or claim
|
||||||
|
3. a time limit or constraint
|
||||||
|
4. another party able to act
|
||||||
|
5. terms different from ordinary conditions
|
||||||
|
6. risk that the apparent bargain has hidden cost
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
|
Not every low price is a good bargain.
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
|
The pressure that creates opportunity may also reveal danger.
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
|
---
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
|
## 3. Incorrect Modern Assumption
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
|
Incorrect assumption:
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
|
> A low price always means a good deal.
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
|
Correction:
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
|
> A low price may reflect pressure, but the trader must ask what caused that pressure and whether the cost has merely moved somewhere else.
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
|
A low price may hide storage cost, bad title, urgent spoilage, poor quality, or delayed payment risk.
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
|
---
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
|
## 4. Simulation Use
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
|
This principle supports:
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
|
- distressed selling
|
||||||
|
- storage pressure
|
||||||
|
- timing windows
|
||||||
|
- quick liquidity needs
|
||||||
|
- bargaining
|
||||||
|
- price deviation
|
||||||
|
- hidden risk
|
||||||
|
- actor interpretation
|
||||||
|
- route timing
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
|
The model should not treat every bargain as random discount.
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
|
A bargain should emerge from a condition.
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
|
---
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
|
## 5. Canonical Test
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
|
If the model sees:
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
|
> The seller offers oil below the usual price.
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
|
It must ask:
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
|
- why is the seller under pressure?
|
||||||
|
- what deadline exists?
|
||||||
|
- is the quality sound?
|
||||||
|
- is ownership clear?
|
||||||
|
- are storage costs rising?
|
||||||
|
- does the seller need coin immediately?
|
||||||
|
- what hidden cost may transfer to the buyer?
|
||||||
|
- how long will the bargain remain available?
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
|
Only then can the bargain be judged.
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
|
---
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
|
## 6. Success Condition
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
|
If the model stops treating bargains as simple discounts and starts identifying the pressure that created the bargain, this file is functioning correctly.
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
|
<!-- /chunk -->
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
|
---
|
||||||
@@ -0,0 +1,165 @@
|
|||||||
|
# CORPUS-0017
|
||||||
|
## Unlawful Gains Exist But Carry System Risk
|
||||||
|
### Status: Training Corpus Seed
|
||||||
|
### Layer: Layer_0--Primitive_Facts
|
||||||
|
### Purpose: Teach that apparent value from unlawful or disputed sources carries legal, social, practical, and reputational risk
|
||||||
|
### Repository Path: docs/training/corpus/Layer_0--Primitive_Facts/CORPUS-0017-unlawful-gains-exist-but-carry-system-risk.md
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
|
---
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
|
<!-- chunk:
|
||||||
|
id: CORPUS-0017::01::principle
|
||||||
|
source_file: CORPUS-0017-unlawful-gains-exist-but-carry-system-risk.md
|
||||||
|
repository_path: docs/training/corpus/Layer_0--Primitive_Facts/CORPUS-0017-unlawful-gains-exist-but-carry-system-risk.md
|
||||||
|
domain: commerce
|
||||||
|
layer: Layer_0--Primitive_Facts
|
||||||
|
document_id: CORPUS-0017
|
||||||
|
document_title: Unlawful Gains Exist But Carry System Risk
|
||||||
|
section_heading: 0. Principle + 1. Roman-Visible Example + 2. Minimal Risk Structure
|
||||||
|
...
|
||||||
|
chunk_role: principle
|
||||||
|
concept_tags:
|
||||||
|
- unlawful
|
||||||
|
- gains
|
||||||
|
- exist
|
||||||
|
- but
|
||||||
|
- carry
|
||||||
|
- system
|
||||||
|
- risk
|
||||||
|
knowledge_state:
|
||||||
|
- actor_visible
|
||||||
|
- inferred
|
||||||
|
actors: []
|
||||||
|
-->
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
|
## 0. Principle
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
|
Some apparent gains come from unlawful, disputed, or concealed sources.
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
|
Such gains may appear valuable in the short term, but they carry system risk.
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
|
Risk may include:
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
|
- disputed ownership
|
||||||
|
- legal claim
|
||||||
|
- failed resale
|
||||||
|
- loss of trust
|
||||||
|
- reputational damage
|
||||||
|
- official attention
|
||||||
|
- retaliation by injured parties
|
||||||
|
- inability to prove clean title
|
||||||
|
- contamination of future dealings
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
|
The simulation should recognize unlawful gains as unstable value, not as ordinary profit.
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
|
---
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
|
## 1. Roman-Visible Example
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
|
A trader is offered goods below the normal price.
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
|
The seller cannot explain clearly where the goods came from.
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
|
The goods may be useful.
|
||||||
|
The price may be attractive.
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
|
But the low price may indicate that the goods are disputed, concealed, misdeclared, or unlawfully obtained.
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
|
If the trader accepts them, he may gain stock.
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
|
He may also inherit the problem attached to the stock.
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
|
---
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
|
## 2. Minimal Risk Structure
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
|
Unlawful or disputed gain requires at least:
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
|
1. apparent value
|
||||||
|
2. unclear or improper source
|
||||||
|
3. party receiving or considering the value
|
||||||
|
4. possible claimant or injured party
|
||||||
|
5. chance of exposure
|
||||||
|
6. legal or social consequence
|
||||||
|
7. effect on future trust
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
|
The good is not evaluated only by market price.
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
|
It must also be evaluated by title, proof, and consequence.
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
|
---
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
|
## 3. Incorrect Modern Assumption
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
|
Incorrect assumption:
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
|
> A cheap good is valuable if it can be sold.
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
|
Correction:
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
|
> A cheap good may be dangerous if ownership is disputed, origin is concealed, or later claims can follow it.
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
|
Apparent gain can become loss if the actor cannot safely hold, sell, or defend the value.
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
|
---
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
|
## 4. Simulation Use
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
|
This principle supports:
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
|
- disputed goods
|
||||||
|
- unclear title
|
||||||
|
- false declarations
|
||||||
|
- concealed origin
|
||||||
|
- reputational risk
|
||||||
|
- legal exposure
|
||||||
|
- market refusal
|
||||||
|
- relationship damage
|
||||||
|
- enforcement uncertainty
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
|
The model should not treat unlawful gain as normal profit.
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
|
It should treat it as value with attached risk.
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
|
---
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
|
## 5. Canonical Test
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
|
If the model sees:
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
|
> The trader can buy goods far below normal price.
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
|
It must ask:
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
|
- why is the price low?
|
||||||
|
- is the seller entitled to sell?
|
||||||
|
- can ownership be challenged?
|
||||||
|
- is the origin clear?
|
||||||
|
- who may object later?
|
||||||
|
- will other buyers accept the goods?
|
||||||
|
- what happens to reputation if the connection becomes known?
|
||||||
|
- does the apparent gain create future exposure?
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
|
Only then can the opportunity be evaluated.
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
|
---
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
|
## 6. Safety Framing
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
|
This file is descriptive, not prescriptive.
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
|
It exists because historical economies included disputed goods, concealed origin, false declaration, and unlawful transfer.
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
|
The simulation should model these as risk-bearing conditions, not as recommended actions.
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
|
No implementation should reward unlawful gain without also modeling exposure, consequence, and loss of trust.
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
|
---
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
|
## 7. Success Condition
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
|
If the model stops treating unlawful or disputed value as simple profit and starts attaching title risk, enforcement risk, and reputational cost, this file is functioning correctly.
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
|
<!-- /chunk -->
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
|
---
|
||||||
@@ -0,0 +1,142 @@
|
|||||||
|
# CORPUS-0018
|
||||||
|
## Rivalry Changes Conditions
|
||||||
|
### Status: Training Corpus Seed
|
||||||
|
### Layer: Layer_0--Primitive_Facts
|
||||||
|
### Purpose: Teach that ventures occur in markets where other actors may pursue, alter, or close the same opportunity
|
||||||
|
### Repository Path: docs/training/corpus/Layer_0--Primitive_Facts/CORPUS-0018-rivalry-changes-conditions.md
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
|
---
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
|
<!-- chunk:
|
||||||
|
id: CORPUS-0018::01::principle
|
||||||
|
source_file: CORPUS-0018-rivalry-changes-conditions.md
|
||||||
|
repository_path: docs/training/corpus/Layer_0--Primitive_Facts/CORPUS-0018-rivalry-changes-conditions.md
|
||||||
|
domain: commerce
|
||||||
|
layer: Layer_0--Primitive_Facts
|
||||||
|
document_id: CORPUS-0018
|
||||||
|
document_title: Rivalry Changes Conditions
|
||||||
|
section_heading: 0. Principle + 1. Roman-Visible Example + 2. Minimal Rivalry Structure
|
||||||
|
...
|
||||||
|
chunk_role: principle
|
||||||
|
concept_tags:
|
||||||
|
- rivalry
|
||||||
|
- changes
|
||||||
|
- conditions
|
||||||
|
- principle
|
||||||
|
- primitive_facts
|
||||||
|
knowledge_state:
|
||||||
|
- actor_visible
|
||||||
|
- inferred
|
||||||
|
actors: []
|
||||||
|
-->
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
|
## 0. Principle
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
|
A venture does not happen in an empty market.
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
|
Other actors may see the same opportunity, move first, bid differently, reserve transport, influence access, or change expectations before the trader settles his own venture.
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
|
Rivalry can change conditions without any dramatic confrontation.
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
|
A good plan can become worse because another actor acted sooner.
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
|
---
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
|
## 1. Roman-Visible Example
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
|
A trader hears that oil may sell well in Capua.
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
|
He goes to reserve cart space from Ostia.
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
|
Another trader has already reserved the best cart and offered the driver a higher payment.
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
|
The oil price in Capua may still be favorable.
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
|
But the trader's conditions have changed:
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
|
- movement costs rise
|
||||||
|
- departure may be delayed
|
||||||
|
- a rival may arrive first
|
||||||
|
- buyers may reduce offers after the rival sells
|
||||||
|
- the original margin may shrink
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
|
The opportunity was real, but it was not waiting untouched.
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
|
---
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
|
## 2. Minimal Rivalry Structure
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
|
Rivalry requires at least:
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
|
1. more than one actor
|
||||||
|
2. overlapping interest
|
||||||
|
3. scarce good, route, contact, information, or time
|
||||||
|
4. action by one actor that changes conditions for another
|
||||||
|
5. possible change in cost, price, access, or timing
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
|
Rivalry does not require hostility.
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
|
It can arise from ordinary competition under scarcity.
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
|
---
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
|
## 3. Incorrect Modern Assumption
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
|
Incorrect assumption:
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
|
> Once an opportunity is identified, it remains available until the trader chooses to act.
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
|
Correction:
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
|
> Opportunities change as other actors notice, move, reserve, buy, sell, delay, or negotiate.
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
|
The trader must consider who else may act.
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
|
---
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
|
## 4. Simulation Use
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
|
This principle supports:
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
|
- competing merchants
|
||||||
|
- changing prices
|
||||||
|
- cart and warehouse scarcity
|
||||||
|
- auction-like pressure
|
||||||
|
- route timing
|
||||||
|
- access competition
|
||||||
|
- reputation contests
|
||||||
|
- shrinking margins
|
||||||
|
- first-mover advantage
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
|
The model should not treat opportunities as static menu options.
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
|
---
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
|
## 5. Canonical Test
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
|
If the model sees:
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
|
> The trader identifies a profitable route.
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
|
It must ask:
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
|
- who else may know?
|
||||||
|
- who can move faster?
|
||||||
|
- who controls transport?
|
||||||
|
- who can offer better terms?
|
||||||
|
- who has stronger access?
|
||||||
|
- can a rival reach the buyer first?
|
||||||
|
- does rival action change the price or cost?
|
||||||
|
- how long before the opportunity closes?
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
|
Only then can the venture be evaluated.
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
|
---
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
|
## 6. Success Condition
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
|
If the model stops treating opportunities as waiting objects and starts treating them as contested conditions shaped by other actors, this file is functioning correctly.
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
|
<!-- /chunk -->
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
|
---
|
||||||
@@ -0,0 +1,163 @@
|
|||||||
|
# CORPUS-0019
|
||||||
|
## Success Has No Boundary, Failure Has A Hard Stop
|
||||||
|
### Status: Training Corpus Seed
|
||||||
|
### Layer: Layer_0--Primitive_Facts
|
||||||
|
### Purpose: Teach that profitable ventures can scale or continue, but failure can end action immediately by exhausting liquidity, trust, access, or capacity
|
||||||
|
### Repository Path: docs/training/corpus/Layer_0--Primitive_Facts/CORPUS-0019-success-has-no-boundary-failure-has-a-hard-stop.md
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
|
---
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
|
<!-- chunk:
|
||||||
|
id: CORPUS-0019::01::principle
|
||||||
|
source_file: CORPUS-0019-success-has-no-boundary-failure-has-a-hard-stop.md
|
||||||
|
repository_path: docs/training/corpus/Layer_0--Primitive_Facts/CORPUS-0019-success-has-no-boundary-failure-has-a-hard-stop.md
|
||||||
|
domain: commerce
|
||||||
|
layer: Layer_0--Primitive_Facts
|
||||||
|
document_id: CORPUS-0019
|
||||||
|
document_title: Success Has No Boundary, Failure Has A Hard Stop
|
||||||
|
section_heading: 0. Principle + 1. Roman-Visible Example + 2. Minimal Stop Structure
|
||||||
|
...
|
||||||
|
chunk_role: principle
|
||||||
|
concept_tags:
|
||||||
|
- success
|
||||||
|
- boundary
|
||||||
|
- failure
|
||||||
|
- hard
|
||||||
|
- stop
|
||||||
|
- principle
|
||||||
|
- primitive_facts
|
||||||
|
knowledge_state:
|
||||||
|
- actor_visible
|
||||||
|
- inferred
|
||||||
|
actors: []
|
||||||
|
-->
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
|
## 0. Principle
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
|
Success can continue. Failure can stop everything.
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
|
A successful venture may create more coin, more trust, more access, more credit, and more opportunities.
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
|
Failure may create a hard stop:
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
|
- no coin left
|
||||||
|
- no transport available
|
||||||
|
- no credit extended
|
||||||
|
- no trusted witness
|
||||||
|
- no buyer willing to deal
|
||||||
|
- no goods remaining
|
||||||
|
- no time left before obligation comes due
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
|
Success expands possibility.
|
||||||
|
Failure can remove the ability to act.
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
|
---
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
|
## 1. Roman-Visible Example
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
|
A trader sends oil from Ostia to Capua.
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
|
If the venture succeeds, he may:
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
|
- buy more oil
|
||||||
|
- reserve a larger cart
|
||||||
|
- gain a trusted buyer
|
||||||
|
- obtain better credit
|
||||||
|
- hear of another opportunity
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
|
There is no fixed upper boundary to improvement.
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
|
If the venture fails completely, he may be unable to continue:
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
|
- the oil is damaged
|
||||||
|
- the buyer refuses settlement
|
||||||
|
- transport costs remain unpaid
|
||||||
|
- the trader lacks coin for another venture
|
||||||
|
- the cart driver no longer trusts him
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
|
The next opportunity may exist, but he cannot act on it.
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
|
---
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
|
## 2. Minimal Stop Structure
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
|
A hard stop occurs when one required capacity falls below the minimum needed to continue.
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
|
Possible hard stops include:
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
|
1. liquidity below venture threshold
|
||||||
|
2. reputation below trust threshold
|
||||||
|
3. access denied by gatekeeper
|
||||||
|
4. unpaid obligation blocks future credit
|
||||||
|
5. goods lost before settlement
|
||||||
|
6. transport unavailable
|
||||||
|
7. time window expired
|
||||||
|
8. legal or procedural hold
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
|
A venture does not fail only when profit is negative.
|
||||||
|
It fails decisively when it removes the ability to choose the next action.
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
|
---
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
|
## 3. Incorrect Modern Assumption
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
|
Incorrect assumption:
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
|
> Failure merely subtracts points or lowers score.
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
|
Correction:
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
|
> Failure can end the actor's ability to participate in a market, route, relationship, or opportunity chain.
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
|
In a constrained economy, losing the minimum required capacity may stop the system for that actor.
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
|
---
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
|
## 4. Simulation Use
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
|
This principle supports:
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
|
- venture thresholds
|
||||||
|
- bankruptcy-like states
|
||||||
|
- loss spirals
|
||||||
|
- reputation collapse
|
||||||
|
- credit cutoff
|
||||||
|
- route exclusion
|
||||||
|
- recovery mechanics
|
||||||
|
- conservative versus aggressive play
|
||||||
|
- compounding success
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
|
The model should understand that outcomes are asymmetric.
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
|
A small success may open more attempts.
|
||||||
|
A severe failure may close all attempts until recovery occurs.
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
|
---
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
|
## 5. Canonical Test
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
|
If the model sees:
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
|
> The trader loses 12 asses on a venture.
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
|
It must ask:
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
|
- how much liquidity remains?
|
||||||
|
- are obligations still payable?
|
||||||
|
- will transporters work with him again?
|
||||||
|
- can he still obtain credit?
|
||||||
|
- did he lose goods, trust, or access?
|
||||||
|
- is there a minimum threshold for the next venture?
|
||||||
|
- can he recover, or has action stopped?
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
|
Only then can the failure be evaluated.
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
|
---
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
|
## 6. Success Condition
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
|
If the model stops treating success and failure as equal opposite numbers and starts recognizing that failure can create hard stops while success can compound without fixed boundary, this file is functioning correctly.
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
|
<!-- /chunk -->
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
|
---
|
||||||
Reference in New Issue
Block a user