# GADM Sectors and Goods — Scoping Note v0.1 **Status:** scoping only. Nothing here is implemented. GADM up to 0.4 has a single production sector, one undifferentiated output Y*, one ecological headroom stock E, and selection quality σ as a fixed-weight mix of channels. GADM-0.1 § 26 plans four extensions. This note fixes their scope and order, and names the questions each is meant to answer, so they do not become structure for its own sake. --- ## 1. Rival versus non-rival goods (first) **Question.** The program's core hypothesis rests on reuse of non-rival assemblies (commons X), while ecological limits bind rival, physical output. GADM currently mixes both in Y*. How much of the generative effect comes from the non-rival share? **Minimal structure.** - Split output into a rival part Y_r (physical throughput, draws on E) and a non-rival part Y_n (information, knowledge, software, organism services: near-zero marginal cost, feeds X). - Information organisms K_Ω produce mainly Y_n. K_phys produces mainly Y_r. - Demand and claims B apply to both. Only Y_r enters the ecological draw. **Tests.** Throughput decoupling (GADM-0.1 § 14): can VFAC rise while physical throughput falls? Does the generative regime's ecological cost (the lowest E in GADM-0.2) shrink when its growth is mostly non-rival? ## 2. Ecological resource classes (second) **Question.** Is the single E stock hiding trade-offs between renewable flows, non-renewable stocks and sinks? **Minimal structure.** Three classes: renewable flows (regenerate), depletable stocks (no regeneration, recycling slows depletion) and sinks (pollution absorption capacity). Each has its own floor, following the planetary-boundaries logic: no aggregation across classes. **Tests.** Which class binds first in each scenario? Does compute-intensive organism growth (`e2`) bind energy and sinks rather than materials? ## 3. Multiple sectors (third, only if 1–2 need it) **Question.** Are there results that depend on sector composition, such as care versus production, or infrastructure versus consumer goods? **Minimal structure.** At most four sectors: production (rival), information and organism services (non-rival), care (labour- and attention-intensive, links to cohort care need), infrastructure (feeds X and the infrastructure channel). Shares of K and of labour by sector. **Scope guard.** Only add sectors if a concrete question from §§ 1–2 or from the cohort model needs them. A full input–output model is out of scope. ## 4. Institutional selection mechanisms (fourth) **Question.** σ weights market, science, community, public and organism selection with fixed weights. Do outcomes depend on *who sets* those weights, and can institutions shift them over time? **Minimal structure.** Make the selection weights a slow state variable, pushed by domination channels (for example, discovery control raises the organism/market weight) and by governance levers (public investment raises the public weight). **Tests.** Does domination capture selection itself (a meta-governance failure, WS-11)? Does a plural selection mix make the generative regime more stable? --- ## Order and dependencies 1. Rival vs. non-rival goods, because it tests the core hypothesis. 2. Ecological classes, because it builds on the Y_r / Y_n split. 3. Sectors, only if needed. 4. Endogenous selection weights, which is independent and can go in parallel with 2. Every extension follows the practices established so far: a separate module so earlier versions stay reproducible; calibration to the previous baseline; a robustness check of the key readings; an entry in `ParameterGrounding.md`.