Browse by subject:
FRAMEWORKPaper #67
The Disclosure Futility Theorem
Shows that mandatory disclosure alone cannot resolve a Hollow Win. Parties already know their bilateral payoffs. The missing information (W) is structurally outside the disclosure space.
THEOREM TYPE
Framework
physically/biologically binding
SOURCE STATUS
Summary + deck generated
verified by paper record
OPEN HTML DECK ↗Deck mode is an on-site reading view, not a PowerPoint download.
Theorem status: evidence-traced claim under the cited paper's assumptionsFalsification: show the same game preserving system welfare without changing the payoff structure
KEY FINDINGS
THE DISCLOSURE FUTILITY THEOREM
Let u(a, θ, s) be an agent's utility with action a, state θ, and addictive/temptation state s. Under Bernheim-Rangel preferences (∂u/∂s > 0, addictive), the optimal policy is cue removal, not information provision. Under Gul-Pesendorfer preferences, expanding the information set without restricting the choice set increases disutility. Disclosure is dominated by structural intervention in Private-Systemic Tension domains with neurochemical or temptation lock-in.
PLAIN ENGLISH
Telling a smoker that smoking causes cancer does not make them quit — the nicotine dependency dominates the informational signal. Telling a gambler the expected value is negative does not stop them — the temptation preference dominates the rational calculation. Information operates in the wrong channel. Structural reform operates in the right one.
EVIDENCE & LIMITATIONS
- Theorem status: evidence-traced claim under the cited paper's assumptions
- Falsification: show the same game preserving system welfare without changing the payoff structure
REFERENCES / CITATION STATUS
Reference counts for this manuscript have not been published yet. Treat its citations as unverified until a source list is available.
Loading curated reference section…
SOURCE QUESTIONS
SSRN not yet postedDeck ↗
WHY THIS MATTERS
For the economist
A structural claim about when bilateral optimization degrades the shared system. Read the formal statement and its stated axioms.
For the regulator
The constraint is physical or biological, so disclosure alone will not internalize it. The policy lever is to bound exposure, not to price it away.
For the executive
This is where a privately efficient decision can degrade the system the business depends on. The governance question is which decision records would make that system cost visible before it is normalized.
For the teacher
An on-site HTML deck and the expanded curriculum cover the argument, the evidence, and the measurement. Use the deck as a self-contained class session, then route deeper through the 45-50h core course or 100+h full curriculum.
For the affected community
In plain terms: who gains from the current arrangement, who pays for it, and what rule change would alter that split. The summary states each without jargon.
© 2026 Erik Postnieks · Independent Researcher · Salt Lake City