Browse by subject:
Paper Summaries/The Proven-Model Requirement: Existence Proofs, Selection Bias, and Falsification in the Intractability Taxonomy
Paper #1026
The Proven-Model Requirement: Existence Proofs, Selection Bias, and Falsification in the Intractability Taxonomy
The paper formalizes the proven-model requirement used in the SAPM Intractability taxonomy. It states the requirement as an existence proof of institutional feasibility, not a generalization claim. It confronts the selection-bias objection, provides a falsification condition, and offers a documentation protocol. A worked example from the firearms domain shows the protocol.
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
THEOREM
Theorem 1 (Proven-Model Theorem): For any domain D classified as Intractability, if there exists a polity p such that p implemented reform R and achieved outcome O with measured superior outcomes, then (1) R is institutionally feasible, (2) D is correctly classified as Intractability, and (3) the claim that R is impossible is false.
PLAIN ENGLISH
If a reform has been successfully implemented somewhere, it is institutionally feasible, and the domain is correctly classified as intractable (not impossible).
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
References section
Detected
Bibliography entries
157
In-text citations
0
Unique citations
99
Footnote markers
0
Citation year span
1560-2023
Source hash
7c614da6a20c
This page reports reference counts measured directly from the manuscript. Full reference entries render only when a curated source chapter carries a public References, Bibliography, Source Notes, Supplemental Reference Archive, Footnotes, or Source-Grounding Ledger section. The site does not synthesize citation entries. Literature-claim verification status: not evaluated.
Loading curated reference section…
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
The proven-model requirement is a core methodological commitment of the SAPM program: every Intractability theorem must name a country or program that has achieved the better outcome. Critics challenge the claim that this is cherry-picking. The paper states precisely what the requirement does and does not claim, confronts the selection-bias objection, answers the scale-and-homogeneity confound, and specifies the condition under which the requirement is falsified. The requirement is an existence proof of institutional feasibility, not a claim of universal transferability. The paper formalizes the requirement as a theorem, derives its falsification condition, and provides a protocol for documenting success cases, failure denominators, and search results. The requirement is shown to be consistent with the Repair-Regular General Game-Change Theorem. A worked example from the firearms domain shows the protocol in practice.
CASE STUDIES
METHODOLOGY
The paper uses logical formalization, theorem-proof structure, and a documentation protocol. It draws on Popperian falsification and comparative policy transfer literature. A worked example illustrates the protocol.
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