tegwick
6462040a15
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
92 lines
3.8 KiB
Markdown
92 lines
3.8 KiB
Markdown
<!--
|
||
Created 2026-10-12 under ASSEMBLY-WP-0006-T06: scoping of the GADM-0.1 § 26
|
||
"GADM-0.4" items (sectors, rival vs. non-rival goods, ecological resource
|
||
classes, institutional selection mechanisms). Implementation is planned in
|
||
ASSEMBLY-WP-0007.
|
||
-->
|
||
|
||
# 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`.
|