tegwick
0e372398bf
- models/GADM-CLD.md: causal-loop diagram, loops, 49 signed links - models/GADM-0.2.md: organism extensions (K split, attention headroom, selection channel O, membrane/lineage levers, participation claims), equations, findings - simulations/gadm02: stdlib simulation, scenario runner, OAT sensitivity, unit tests; results committed - scenarios/: six GADM-0.1 regimes + baseline + two organism-axis variants - metrics/MetricsCatalog.md, models/GADM-0.3-Candidates.md, references/LiteratureComparison.md - ASSEMBLY-WP-0005 (proposed, residual): GADM-0.3 Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 5.5 <noreply@anthropic.com> Assistant: claude-code Assistant-Model: opus Assistant-Process: 1494246@bnt-lap001 Assistant-Session: caf6de6f-f9e4-47ce-a584-49baa271fa4b
158 lines
7.8 KiB
Markdown
158 lines
7.8 KiB
Markdown
<!--
|
||
Created 2026-10-12 under ASSEMBLY-WP-0004-T01 (causal-loop diagram) and
|
||
ASSEMBLY-WP-0004-T02 (link signs and dependencies). Base: GADM-0.1
|
||
(GenerativeAssemblyDynamicsModel.md). Links marked "0.2" are the information-
|
||
organism additions adopted in GADM-0.2.md.
|
||
-->
|
||
|
||
# GADM Causal Structure — Causal-Loop Diagram and Link Table
|
||
|
||
**Status:** v0.1 for GADM-0.1 plus the GADM-0.2 additions, exploratory.
|
||
|
||
## 1. Causal-loop diagram
|
||
|
||
Solid arrows are GADM-0.1. Dotted arrows are the GADM-0.2 organism
|
||
additions. Edge labels give the polarity: `+` means same direction, `−` means
|
||
opposite direction.
|
||
|
||
```mermaid
|
||
flowchart LR
|
||
H[H Human capability] -->|+| V
|
||
X[X Assembly commons] -->|+| V
|
||
F[F Risk capacity] -->|+| V
|
||
G[G Effective agency] -->|+| V
|
||
N[N Diversity & composability] -->|+| V
|
||
Q[Q Epistemic capacity] -->|+| V
|
||
P[P Domination] -->|−| V
|
||
V((V Experimentation)) -->|+| VS((V_sel Selected))
|
||
SIG((σ Selection quality)) -->|+| VS
|
||
VS -->|+ via ρ| X
|
||
VS -->|+| K[K Productive capacity]
|
||
K -->|+| Y((Y* Output))
|
||
E[E Ecological headroom] -->|+| Y
|
||
Y -->|+| I((I Claims))
|
||
I -->|+| D((D Demand))
|
||
S[S Social cohesion] -->|+| D
|
||
D -->|+| SIG
|
||
I -->|+ existence security| G
|
||
F -->|+ restartability| G
|
||
P -->|−| G
|
||
VS -->|+ private return| P
|
||
P -->|+ network effects| P
|
||
Q -->|− checks| P
|
||
X -->|− interoperability| P
|
||
K -->|− throughput| E
|
||
G -->|+| S
|
||
P -->|−| S
|
||
X -->|+| H
|
||
S -->|+| H
|
||
X -->|+| Q
|
||
P -->|−| Q
|
||
V -->|− if V > Q| Q
|
||
V -->|+ entry| N
|
||
P -->|−| N
|
||
X -->|+ standards| N
|
||
|
||
Ko[K_Ω Organism capability] -.->|+| V
|
||
Ko -.->|+ learning with use| Ko
|
||
VS -.->|+| Ko
|
||
Ko -.->|+ membrane & lineage control| P
|
||
Ko -.->|− deskilling| H
|
||
Ko -.->|− lock-in| G
|
||
Ko -.->|− monoculture| N
|
||
Ko -.->|− labor share| I
|
||
Ko -.->|− compute draw| E
|
||
Ko -.->|− extraction| A[A Attention headroom]
|
||
A -.->|+ adoption| SIG
|
||
A -.->|+| H
|
||
A -.->|+| S
|
||
I -.->|+ recovery| A
|
||
```
|
||
|
||
## 2. Loops
|
||
|
||
| ID | Type | Path | Reading |
|
||
|---|---|---|---|
|
||
| R1 | reinforcing | X → V → V_sel → X | **Generative reuse.** Commons enable experiments, and selected experiments become commons. Strength depends on ρ. |
|
||
| R2 | reinforcing | V_sel → K → Y* → I → D → σ → V_sel | **Demand-backed growth.** Works only while claims stay broad. |
|
||
| R3 | reinforcing | V_sel → P (private return) → P (network effects) | **Success becomes control** (GADM-0.1 § 13). Path closure when unchecked. |
|
||
| R4 | reinforcing | Y* → I → G → V → V_sel → K → Y* | **Agency-backed growth.** Existence security widens who can attempt. |
|
||
| R5 | reinforcing | G → S → D → σ → V_sel → K → Y* → I → G | **Cohesion.** Legitimate participation sustains demand and selection. |
|
||
| R6 | reinforcing | X → Q → V → V_sel → X | **Epistemic commons.** Open evidence improves the experiments that feed the commons. |
|
||
| R7 (0.2) | reinforcing | K_Ω → K_Ω (learning with use) | **Organism learning.** Organisms improve fastest where they are used most. |
|
||
| R8 (0.2) | reinforcing | K_Ω → P → G, S → D → V_sel → K_Ω | **Lineage concentration.** Combined with R7, this is the natural-monopoly loop of the mapping note's open question 1. |
|
||
| B1 | balancing | P → V → V_sel → P (private return) | **Domination throttles its own source.** High P shrinks experimentation, which slows the success that feeds P. Weak relative to R3. |
|
||
| B2 | balancing | K → E → Y* → I → D → V_sel → K | **Ecological limit.** Throughput erodes headroom and caps output. |
|
||
| B3 | balancing | V → Q → V (when V > Q) | **Epistemic brake.** Experimentation that outruns model correction degrades Q, which slows V (GADM-0.1 § 15). |
|
||
| B4 | balancing | Q → P → Q (checks) | **Accountability.** Epistemic capacity checks domination, and domination captures information. In the model, a reinforcing pair in disguise: whichever wins compounds. |
|
||
| B5 (0.2) | balancing | K_Ω → A → σ → V_sel → K_Ω | **Attention limit.** Extraction depletes the attention that adoption and selection need. |
|
||
| B6 (0.2) | balancing | K_Ω → I (labor share) → D → V_sel → K_Ω | **Demand erosion.** Automation without broad claims undermines its own demand. |
|
||
|
||
## 3. Link table
|
||
|
||
`Conf.` is confidence in the sign: **H** (stated in GADM-0.1 or definitional),
|
||
**M** (plausible, inferred from GADM text), **L** (contested). `Src.` is the
|
||
source section in GADM-0.1, or the mapping note (`MN`).
|
||
|
||
| # | Source | Target | Sign | Mechanism | Conf. | Src. |
|
||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
||
| 1 | H | V | + | capability to attempt | H | § 5 |
|
||
| 2 | X | V | + | reusable components | H | § 5 |
|
||
| 3 | F | V | + | risk-bearing capacity | H | § 5 |
|
||
| 4 | G | V | + | effective freedom to attempt | H | § 5 |
|
||
| 5 | N | V | + | recombination potential | H | § 5 |
|
||
| 6 | Q | V | + | model quality | H | § 5 |
|
||
| 7 | P | V | − | gatekeeping | H | § 5 |
|
||
| 8 | V | V_sel | + | definitional | H | § 6 |
|
||
| 9 | σ | V_sel | + | definitional | H | § 6 |
|
||
| 10 | V_sel | X | + | preservation via ρ | H | § 7 |
|
||
| 11 | P | X | − | enclosure L_X | M | § 7 |
|
||
| 12 | V_sel | K | + | commercial conversion | H | § 8 |
|
||
| 13 | K | Y* | + | definitional | H | § 8 |
|
||
| 14 | E | Y* | + | ecological constraint f(E) | H | § 8 |
|
||
| 15 | Y* | I | + | claims on output | H | § 9 |
|
||
| 16 | I | D | + | purchasing power | H | § 10 |
|
||
| 17 | S | D | + | social confidence | H | § 10 |
|
||
| 18 | D | σ (market) | + | adoption | M | § 19 |
|
||
| 19 | I | G | + | existence security | H | § 12 |
|
||
| 20 | F | G | + | restartability | M | § 12 |
|
||
| 21 | P | G | − | domination term | H | § 12 |
|
||
| 22 | V_sel | P | + | private return → control | H | § 13 |
|
||
| 23 | P | P | + | network effects, capture | H | § 13 |
|
||
| 24 | Q | P | − | checks (audit, evidence) | M | § 13 |
|
||
| 25 | X | P | − | interoperability | M | § 13 |
|
||
| 26 | K | E | − | physical throughput | H | § 14 |
|
||
| 27 | G | S | + | agency, future opportunity | H | § 17 |
|
||
| 28 | P | S | − | domination, lack of voice | H | § 17 |
|
||
| 29 | X | H | + | education, transfer T_g | M | §§ 11, 18 |
|
||
| 30 | S | H | + | care, participation | M | § 11 |
|
||
| 31 | X | Q | + | open evidence, research infrastructure | M | § 15 |
|
||
| 32 | P | Q | − | information capture | H | § 15 |
|
||
| 33 | V | Q | − (if V > Q) | experimentation outruns correction | L | § 15 |
|
||
| 34 | V | N | + | entry | M | § 16 |
|
||
| 35 | P | N | − | monoculture, lock-in | H | § 16 |
|
||
| 36 | X | N | + | open standards | M | § 16 |
|
||
| 37 | K_Ω | V | + | cheap experiments, gated by Q | M | MN § 3.1 |
|
||
| 38 | K_Ω | K_Ω | + | learning with use | M | MN § 1 |
|
||
| 39 | K_Ω | P | + | membrane control, lineage concentration (moderated by m, L) | M | MN § 3.5 |
|
||
| 40 | K_Ω | H | − | deskilling (moderated by m) | L | MN § 2 |
|
||
| 41 | K_Ω | G | ± | access (+, with m) vs. lock-in (−, without m) | L | MN § 2 |
|
||
| 42 | K_Ω | N | − | monoculture (moderated by L) | M | MN § 2 |
|
||
| 43 | K_Ω | I (labor share) | − | automation | H | MN § 3.4 |
|
||
| 44 | K_Ω | E | − | compute draw | M | MN § 4 |
|
||
| 45 | K_Ω | A | − | extraction (moderated by x_att) | M | MN § 4 |
|
||
| 46 | K_Ω | Q | ± | audit/research (+, with expl) vs. opacity (−) | L | MN § 2 |
|
||
| 47 | A | σ (market) | + | adoption needs attention | M | MN § 4 |
|
||
| 48 | A | H, S | + | self-directed development, participation | M | MN § 4 |
|
||
| 49 | I | A | + | economic security frees attention | L | new |
|
||
|
||
### Contested links (Conf. L)
|
||
|
||
- **#33.** GADM-0.1 states the damage hypothesis qualitatively. GADM-0.2
|
||
implements it as a degradation of Q proportional to `max(0, V − Q)`. The
|
||
threshold form is a modeling choice.
|
||
- **#40, #41, #46.** The sign depends on institutional levers. GADM-0.2 makes
|
||
this explicit: membrane control `m` and explainability `expl` switch the
|
||
dominant sign.
|
||
- **#49.** Not in either source. Introduced so that precarity reduces
|
||
attention headroom. Needs empirical grounding (WS-14).
|