From b31843c5e2544ed78ce4d52542f3f67301652e1f Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 From: TheRON Date: Thu, 30 Apr 2026 15:01:46 -0400 Subject: [PATCH] obsolete --- .../CORPUS-0003-same-loss-six-readings.md | 300 ------------------ 1 file changed, 300 deletions(-) delete mode 100644 docs/training/corpus/Layer_3--Actor_Perspective/CORPUS-0003-same-loss-six-readings.md diff --git a/docs/training/corpus/Layer_3--Actor_Perspective/CORPUS-0003-same-loss-six-readings.md b/docs/training/corpus/Layer_3--Actor_Perspective/CORPUS-0003-same-loss-six-readings.md deleted file mode 100644 index 8619837..0000000 --- a/docs/training/corpus/Layer_3--Actor_Perspective/CORPUS-0003-same-loss-six-readings.md +++ /dev/null @@ -1,300 +0,0 @@ -# CORPUS-0003 -## Same Loss, Six Readings -### Status: Training Corpus Seed -### Layer: Layer_3--Actor_Perspective -### Purpose: Teach that the same venture loss can be explained differently by each actor profile without changing the settled arithmetic -### Repository Path: docs/training/corpus/Layer_3--Actor_Perspective/CORPUS-0003-same-loss-six-readings.md - ---- - -## 0. Scenario - -A trader sends oil from Ostia to Capua. - -The venture loses money. - -All six actors see the same final account. - -They do not explain the failure the same way. - -The arithmetic is fixed. - -The diagnosis differs. - ---- - -## 1. Shared Final Account - -| Item | Value | -|---|---:| -| Origin | Ostia | -| Destination | Capua | -| Good | oil | -| Purchase price | 10 asses | -| Movement and handling | 6 asses | -| Additional delay cost | 2 asses | -| Total cost | 18 asses | -| Final sale value | 14 asses | -| Final result | 4 asses loss | - -Final arithmetic: - -```text -14 - 18 = -4 asses -``` - -The venture lost 4 asses. - -No actor can change that settled outcome. - -Each actor asks why the loss happened and what must be corrected before the next venture. - ---- - -## 2. Marcus Atilius Varro — Former Legionary - -Varro reads the loss through failed execution. - -He asks: - -- why did delay occur? -- who controlled the cart? -- was the route checked? -- were animals fit? -- who failed to keep schedule? -- was there a backup movement plan? - -Varro does not first blame price. - -He blames disorder in movement unless shown otherwise. - -### Varro Diagnosis - -```text -settled result: 4 asses loss -primary failure: movement discipline failed -evidence: delay cost added 2 asses -next correction: stronger route control, better carrier, backup timing -``` - -For Varro, the loss came from failure to keep the venture moving. - ---- - -## 3. Lucius Fabius Felix — Freedman Trader - -Felix reads the loss through missed timing and mispricing. - -He asks: - -- who bought or sold before us? -- did the seller know more than we did? -- did the Capua price fall before arrival? -- was the purchase price too high? -- could the cargo have been sold earlier? -- did another trader close the window? - -Felix does not accept that the margin simply vanished. - -He looks for the actor who moved faster. - -### Felix Diagnosis - -```text -settled result: 4 asses loss -primary failure: price window closed before sale -evidence: final sale value only 14 asses -next correction: buy cheaper, move faster, reduce exposure, watch rivals -``` - -For Felix, the loss came from acting after the market had already changed. - ---- - -## 4. Quintus Cornelius Lentulus Minor — Noble Younger Son - -Lentulus reads the loss through poor access and weak buyer position. - -He asks: - -- who was the buyer? -- why was a better buyer not available? -- did the trader lack introduction? -- was the cargo offered to the wrong household? -- did association with weak buyers reduce price? -- could a better name have produced better terms? - -Lentulus does not see only a failed sale. - -He sees inadequate social placement. - -### Lentulus Diagnosis - -```text -settled result: 4 asses loss -primary failure: weak access to better buyers -evidence: final sale value below expected value -next correction: improve buyer channel, secure introduction, avoid low-status sale pressure -``` - -For Lentulus, the loss came from selling into the wrong social channel. - ---- - -## 5. Gaius Licinius Crispus — Failed Magistrate - -Crispus reads the loss through weak terms and poor enforceability. - -He asks: - -- was a price agreed before delivery? -- was there a witness? -- did the buyer have right to reduce offer? -- were delay costs assignable to someone else? -- could payment have been compelled under clearer terms? -- was the settlement documented? - -Crispus does not trust informal expectation. - -He sees the loss as failure to bind obligations before risk appeared. - -### Crispus Diagnosis - -```text -settled result: 4 asses loss -primary failure: terms failed to protect the trader -evidence: sale value fell and delay cost remained with trader -next correction: bind buyer earlier, record terms, assign delay responsibility -``` - -For Crispus, the loss came from insufficient enforceable structure. - ---- - -## 6. Titus Varenus Secundus — Camp Logistician - -Secundus reads the loss through capacity and load planning. - -He asks: - -- was the cart underloaded? -- was return value ignored? -- did delay come from poor animal or load condition? -- was the cargo matched to transport? -- could another good have filled unused capacity? -- did the route carry value both ways? - -Secundus sees not only the failed oil sale. - -He sees wasted movement. - -### Secundus Diagnosis - -```text -settled result: 4 asses loss -primary failure: movement capacity was poorly used -evidence: transport cost remained high relative to cargo value -next correction: combine loads, secure return cargo, reduce empty movement -``` - -For Secundus, the loss came from inefficient use of capacity. - ---- - -## 7. Publius Terentius Chresimus — Guild Scribe - -Chresimus reads the loss through incomplete accounting and unverified assumptions. - -He asks: - -- were all costs counted before dispatch? -- was the expected sale price recorded or merely repeated? -- did the delay cost appear in the plan? -- was the quantity or quality disputed? -- were any obligations left out of the estimate? -- does the account reconcile after settlement? - -Chresimus does not accept “bad luck” without checking the account. - -### Chresimus Diagnosis - -```text -settled result: 4 asses loss -primary failure: expected account was incomplete or unverified -evidence: added delay cost and lower sale value changed final result -next correction: separate estimate, known cost, unknown cost, and settlement value -``` - -For Chresimus, the loss came from trusting an estimate before the account was complete. - ---- - -## 8. Same Loss, Different Corrections - -| Actor | Main Diagnosis | First Correction | -|---|---|---| -| Varro | movement failed | control route and carrier | -| Felix | price window closed | move faster or buy cheaper | -| Lentulus | weak buyer access | secure better introduction | -| Crispus | terms were not binding | document obligations earlier | -| Secundus | capacity was misused | combine loads or return cargo | -| Chresimus | account was incomplete | verify costs and settlement assumptions | - -The loss is the same. - -The recovery plan differs. - ---- - -## 9. Correct Model Behavior - -The model should separate: - -| Category | Meaning | -|---|---| -| settled arithmetic | fixed loss after final values | -| actor diagnosis | how each actor explains cause | -| actor evidence | which fact each actor treats as most important | -| actor correction | what each actor would change next | -| recovery path | practical next action after loss | - -Actor perspective should alter diagnosis and recovery, not the final account. - ---- - -## 10. Incorrect Model Behavior - -The model should not: - -- let actor confidence change the settled loss -- make every actor explain failure the same way -- treat the loss as only bad arithmetic -- ignore recovery path -- assume the loudest diagnosis is true -- collapse movement, access, terms, capacity, and accounting into one generic mistake -- call the decision irrational solely because the hidden outcome was bad - ---- - -## 11. Layer-0, Layer-1, And Layer-2 Concepts Used - -This example uses: - -- `Layer_0/CORPUS-0004-cost-includes-more-than-purchase-price` -- `Layer_0/CORPUS-0005-profit-is-sale-minus-total-cost` -- `Layer_0/CORPUS-0006-delay-is-economic-cost` -- `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-0019-success-has-no-boundary-failure-has-a-hard-stop` -- `Layer_1/CORPUS-0003-arithmetic-resolves-the-venture` -- `Layer_1/CORPUS-0010-hard-stop-after-loss` -- `Layer_2/CORPUS-0005-hidden-true-state-vs-known-state` -- `Layer_2/CORPUS-0012-settlement-reveals-truth` - ---- - -## 12. Success Condition - -If the model can keep the 4-ass loss fixed while producing six different rational diagnoses and six different recovery priorities, this file is functioning correctly.