obsolete
This commit is contained in:
@@ -1,320 +0,0 @@
|
||||
# CORPUS-0014
|
||||
## Same Lost Seller, Six Readings
|
||||
### Status: Training Corpus Seed
|
||||
### Layer: Layer_3--Actor_Perspective
|
||||
### Purpose: Teach that losing a seller can alter supply access, purchase cost, timing, trust, and future arithmetic differently for each actor profile
|
||||
### Repository Path: docs/training/corpus/Layer_3--Actor_Perspective/CORPUS-0014-same-lost-seller-six-readings.md
|
||||
|
||||
---
|
||||
|
||||
## 0. Scenario
|
||||
|
||||
A trader in Ostia learns that a regular seller will no longer supply him.
|
||||
|
||||
The reason is not fully known.
|
||||
|
||||
The seller may have found a better buyer, raised prices, lost stock, shifted allegiance, withdrawn credit, changed household obligations, or become unavailable.
|
||||
|
||||
All six actors hear the same news.
|
||||
|
||||
They do not interpret the loss the same way.
|
||||
|
||||
---
|
||||
|
||||
## 1. Shared Lost Seller Facts
|
||||
|
||||
| Fact | Value |
|
||||
|---|---|
|
||||
| Seller location | Ostia |
|
||||
| Prior role | regular seller/source |
|
||||
| Goods previously supplied | oil and small imported goods |
|
||||
| Prior purchase price | 10 asses |
|
||||
| Current seller status | no longer supplying |
|
||||
| Reason | uncertain |
|
||||
| Replacement seller | unknown |
|
||||
| Effect on route | likely negative |
|
||||
| Future credit access | uncertain |
|
||||
|
||||
The seller was not merely a source of goods.
|
||||
|
||||
The seller was an access point, price anchor, credit path, and timing advantage.
|
||||
|
||||
---
|
||||
|
||||
## 2. Basic Arithmetic Effect
|
||||
|
||||
Before seller loss:
|
||||
|
||||
```text
|
||||
purchase price = 10 asses
|
||||
movement and handling = 6 asses
|
||||
expected sale value = 24 asses
|
||||
expected profit = 8 asses
|
||||
```
|
||||
|
||||
After seller loss, if the trader must buy from a more expensive seller:
|
||||
|
||||
```text
|
||||
purchase price = 14 asses
|
||||
movement and handling = 6 asses
|
||||
expected sale value = 24 asses
|
||||
expected profit = 4 asses
|
||||
```
|
||||
|
||||
If replacement supply is uncertain:
|
||||
|
||||
```text
|
||||
purchase price = unknown
|
||||
available quantity = unknown
|
||||
venture cannot be evaluated safely
|
||||
```
|
||||
|
||||
Losing a seller changes future arithmetic by altering purchase price, quality, quantity, timing, and credit.
|
||||
|
||||
---
|
||||
|
||||
## 3. Marcus Atilius Varro — Former Legionary
|
||||
|
||||
Varro reads the lost seller through supply reliability and readiness.
|
||||
|
||||
He asks:
|
||||
|
||||
- when did the seller become unreliable?
|
||||
- can the route still be supplied on schedule?
|
||||
- is there a replacement source ready now?
|
||||
- does the new seller deliver consistent quantity?
|
||||
- can the trader trust the stock to be ready before departure?
|
||||
- should the venture halt until supply is secured?
|
||||
|
||||
Varro sees the seller as the origin node of the operation.
|
||||
|
||||
### Varro Interpretation
|
||||
|
||||
```text
|
||||
lost seller: origin supply failed
|
||||
primary question: where can dependable stock be obtained now?
|
||||
risk focus: delayed loading, uncertain quantity, unreliable substitute
|
||||
first action: secure a reliable replacement source before committing transport
|
||||
```
|
||||
|
||||
For Varro, a route cannot begin until the origin source is dependable.
|
||||
|
||||
---
|
||||
|
||||
## 4. Lucius Fabius Felix — Freedman Trader
|
||||
|
||||
Felix reads the lost seller through pricing, pressure, and rival capture.
|
||||
|
||||
He asks:
|
||||
|
||||
- who captured the seller?
|
||||
- did the seller find a better price?
|
||||
- is the refusal real or bargaining posture?
|
||||
- does the seller need better terms, faster coin, or less risk?
|
||||
- can another pressured seller be found?
|
||||
- can the old seller be recovered through a sharper bargain?
|
||||
|
||||
Felix treats the loss as information about the supply market.
|
||||
|
||||
### Felix Interpretation
|
||||
|
||||
```text
|
||||
lost seller: supply price or bargaining position changed
|
||||
primary question: who now controls the seller's stock?
|
||||
risk focus: overpaying, chasing false refusal, rival locking supply
|
||||
first action: test whether the seller is truly lost or repricing the relationship
|
||||
```
|
||||
|
||||
For Felix, losing the seller may reveal a rival move, seller pressure, or a new bargain elsewhere.
|
||||
|
||||
---
|
||||
|
||||
## 5. Quintus Cornelius Lentulus Minor — Noble Younger Son
|
||||
|
||||
Lentulus reads the lost seller through reputation, status, and social channel.
|
||||
|
||||
He asks:
|
||||
|
||||
- why did the seller withdraw?
|
||||
- did someone advise him not to deal?
|
||||
- does the refusal imply reduced standing?
|
||||
- can a higher-status introduction restore supply?
|
||||
- is the seller now attached to another household?
|
||||
- should the trader avoid appearing rejected?
|
||||
|
||||
Lentulus sees seller loss as a possible social signal.
|
||||
|
||||
### Lentulus Interpretation
|
||||
|
||||
```text
|
||||
lost seller: social access to supply may have shifted
|
||||
primary question: whose influence redirected the seller?
|
||||
risk focus: visible rejection, loss of name-value, rival prestige
|
||||
first action: identify the social cause and replace the channel if needed
|
||||
```
|
||||
|
||||
For Lentulus, the seller matters because refusal may indicate weakening access.
|
||||
|
||||
---
|
||||
|
||||
## 6. Gaius Licinius Crispus — Failed Magistrate
|
||||
|
||||
Crispus reads the lost seller through obligation, credit, and prior terms.
|
||||
|
||||
He asks:
|
||||
|
||||
- was the seller obligated to supply?
|
||||
- was any quantity promised?
|
||||
- was a deposit paid?
|
||||
- was deferred payment previously allowed?
|
||||
- did the seller lawfully withdraw?
|
||||
- can the trader claim loss from reliance?
|
||||
- should terms be reaffirmed with a replacement seller?
|
||||
|
||||
Crispus does not treat seller loss only as inconvenience.
|
||||
|
||||
He asks whether a prior obligation failed.
|
||||
|
||||
### Crispus Interpretation
|
||||
|
||||
```text
|
||||
lost seller: prior supply obligation may have failed
|
||||
primary question: was there a binding commitment or only expectation?
|
||||
risk focus: lost deposit, failed supply, weak witness, credit withdrawal
|
||||
first action: examine terms, deposits, witnesses, and remedy options
|
||||
```
|
||||
|
||||
For Crispus, losing a seller matters differently if the seller broke a commitment rather than merely changed preference.
|
||||
|
||||
---
|
||||
|
||||
## 7. Titus Varenus Secundus — Camp Logistician
|
||||
|
||||
Secundus reads the lost seller through supply volume, substitute goods, and flow.
|
||||
|
||||
He asks:
|
||||
|
||||
- how much volume did the seller usually provide?
|
||||
- can the route be supplied from smaller sellers?
|
||||
- can cargo be changed to another good?
|
||||
- can the cart still be filled efficiently?
|
||||
- does the substitute supply match quality and packing needs?
|
||||
- can return cargo or mixed cargo compensate?
|
||||
|
||||
Secundus treats seller loss as a supply-chain break.
|
||||
|
||||
### Secundus Interpretation
|
||||
|
||||
```text
|
||||
lost seller: origin capacity disappeared or shifted
|
||||
primary question: what supply volume can replace the lost source?
|
||||
risk focus: underfilled cart, wrong goods, poor quality, inefficient movement
|
||||
first action: map substitute suppliers, quantities, and cargo mix
|
||||
```
|
||||
|
||||
For Secundus, the problem is not only price. It is whether the route still has enough suitable cargo to move.
|
||||
|
||||
---
|
||||
|
||||
## 8. Publius Terentius Chresimus — Guild Scribe
|
||||
|
||||
Chresimus reads the lost seller through accounts, balances, and prior dealing.
|
||||
|
||||
He asks:
|
||||
|
||||
- did the trader owe the seller anything?
|
||||
- were prior payments late?
|
||||
- was quantity disputed before?
|
||||
- did the seller change terms after an account problem?
|
||||
- was any stock already pledged elsewhere?
|
||||
- should the seller be marked unavailable, hostile, or merely uncertain?
|
||||
|
||||
Chresimus wants to know whether the loss was already visible in the records.
|
||||
|
||||
### Chresimus Interpretation
|
||||
|
||||
```text
|
||||
lost seller: account relationship changed
|
||||
primary question: what do prior balances, disputes, and payment terms reveal?
|
||||
risk focus: unpaid balance, stale obligation, hidden claim, false supply assumption
|
||||
first action: reconcile seller account before deciding whether to repair or replace
|
||||
```
|
||||
|
||||
For Chresimus, a seller may be lost because the account weakened before the refusal became explicit.
|
||||
|
||||
---
|
||||
|
||||
## 9. Same Lost Seller, Different First Actions
|
||||
|
||||
| Actor | First Action |
|
||||
|---|---|
|
||||
| Varro | secure a dependable replacement source before movement |
|
||||
| Felix | determine whether refusal is real, bargaining, or rival capture |
|
||||
| Lentulus | identify social cause and restore or replace access |
|
||||
| Crispus | examine whether a supply commitment was broken |
|
||||
| Secundus | map substitute supply volume and cargo mix |
|
||||
| Chresimus | reconcile seller account and prior payment history |
|
||||
|
||||
The seller loss is the same.
|
||||
|
||||
The recovery path differs.
|
||||
|
||||
---
|
||||
|
||||
## 10. Correct Model Behavior
|
||||
|
||||
The model should separate:
|
||||
|
||||
| Category | Meaning |
|
||||
|---|---|
|
||||
| seller_status | no longer supplying |
|
||||
| known_reason | what is actually known about why |
|
||||
| hidden_reason | true cause if not yet known |
|
||||
| arithmetic effect | higher or uncertain purchase cost |
|
||||
| supply effect | origin access weakened |
|
||||
| credit effect | deferred payment may disappear |
|
||||
| actor lens | how each actor diagnoses the loss |
|
||||
| recovery path | how each actor seeks replacement or repair |
|
||||
|
||||
A seller is an economic relationship, not just a price source.
|
||||
|
||||
---
|
||||
|
||||
## 11. Incorrect Model Behavior
|
||||
|
||||
The model should not:
|
||||
|
||||
- treat a lost seller as only a higher purchase price
|
||||
- assume the reason is known without evidence
|
||||
- ignore rival capture
|
||||
- ignore reputation or status effects
|
||||
- ignore prior deposits or supply commitments
|
||||
- ignore quality and quantity differences from replacement sellers
|
||||
- make all actors seek the same replacement
|
||||
- keep old route arithmetic after the seller 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-0004-cost-includes-more-than-purchase-price`
|
||||
- `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-0009-credit-allows-action-without-coin`
|
||||
- `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-0011-quality-uncertainty`
|
||||
|
||||
---
|
||||
|
||||
## 13. Success Condition
|
||||
|
||||
If the model can treat loss of a seller as a change in supply access, purchase cost, quantity, quality, credit, and future arithmetic while producing six distinct rational readings, this file is functioning correctly.
|
||||
Reference in New Issue
Block a user