{ "authorities": [ { "id": "mst-release-source", "path": "Projects/deep-research/output/mst_v132_release_20260728/mst-journal-v1.3.2.md", "role": "released working-paper source", "sha256": "ec18adfd14fc17eb231d200ffe0071517e839d300d74a7450327565557ba8803", "status": "current" }, { "id": "mst-release-review", "path": "Projects/deep-research/output/mst_v132_release_20260728/MST_V132_FINAL_INDEPENDENT_RELEASE_REVIEW.md", "role": "public working-paper release review", "sha256": "330f816b2d7f3b009f0b49093333851065be6285a741c9c5d7eb80deb4d51c60", "status": "current" }, { "id": "pricing-release-source", "path": "Projects/deep-research/output/pricing_law_rebuild_20260727/missing-system-pricing-law-v2.4.md", "role": "released working-paper source", "sha256": "9477c04bb18116ec82be607c25e4dc18ad4baba93688cf84ed22e8a6e82b2963", "status": "current" }, { "id": "pricing-release-review", "path": "Projects/deep-research/output/pricing_law_rebuild_20260727/MISSING_SYSTEM_PRICING_LAW_V24_INDEPENDENT_RELEASE_REVIEW_POSTFIX.md", "role": "public working-paper release review", "sha256": "9664014e38cf9d1caa775a9cd1c869f2368d207030d398edce85871157c3e63d", "status": "current" }, { "id": "changing-release-source", "path": "Projects/deep-research/output/changing_game_rebuild_20260728/release-v1.4/changing-the-game-working-paper-v1.4.md", "role": "released working-paper source", "sha256": "4bce35a0a0d174cd736c54bbc82fd58c1e73db96c4d3526b02c0773c80220760", "status": "current" }, { "id": "changing-release-review", "path": "Projects/deep-research/output/changing_game_rebuild_20260728/release-v1.4/CHANGING_GAME_V14_INDEPENDENT_RELEASE_REVIEW_20260728.md", "role": "public working-paper release review", "sha256": "41ed69b141aa71c98ec81ec6773b6406af2b0f444deda5f29d471e497bc2cd74", "status": "current" }, { "id": "fiscal-release-source", "path": "Projects/deep-research/output/fiscal_capture_rebuild_20260728/v1.5/fiscal-capture-v1.5.md", "role": "released working-paper source", "sha256": "9dc2a67224cb18cd5af686a7ec9b0988988f8fd9f134332507b7d0ebe187ac79", "status": "current" }, { "id": "fiscal-release-review", "path": "Projects/deep-research/output/fiscal_capture_rebuild_20260728/v1.5/reviews/fresh_independent_20260728/FISCAL_CAPTURE_V15_FRESH_INDEPENDENT_REVIEW.md", "role": "public working-paper release review", "sha256": "c73027f7567f082d6103e35092c8c70c7aee4ee18d3c89abbaafddf58c0466bc", "status": "current" }, { "id": "mst-held-source", "path": "Projects/deep-research/output/theorem_complete_program_20260727/families/01-missing-system-theorem/mst-journal-v1.9.md", "role": "held theorem-program derivative", "sha256": "f347edb4215e1682085c69eb0c320e890cdb4e5dbe1505c3a5202e65e5a3dffa", "status": "current" }, { "id": "mst-held-review", "path": "Projects/deep-research/output/theorem_complete_program_20260727/families/01-missing-system-theorem/final_scorecard_L6.md", "role": "held derivative scorecard", "sha256": "3ee164f1b05ece4a2abedd365892527823343d066d805381f45eb4beb00048c0", "status": "current" }, { "id": "pricing-held-source", "path": "Projects/deep-research/output/theorem_complete_program_20260727/families/02-missing-system-pricing-law/missing-system-pricing-law-v2.7.md", "role": "held theorem-program derivative", "sha256": "1942e3935c033024c35b79c38b966aee4bf80f41834bdff6cd5b7a4f72bba3b5", "status": "current" }, { "id": "pricing-held-review", "path": "Projects/deep-research/output/theorem_complete_program_20260727/families/02-missing-system-pricing-law/final_scorecard_L7.md", "role": "held derivative scorecard", "sha256": "8f24df417b80ba80c5da3c323d38251ee0bb6fad910eec3cec4afd649dc25eef", "status": "current" }, { "id": "taxonomy-held-source", "path": "Projects/deep-research/output/theorem_complete_program_20260727/families/03-taxonomy-layer/taxonomy-and-classifier-v1.6.md", "role": "held theorem-program derivative", "sha256": "9eb7f9539cc97d566a4f7899914c6018f336f4f8714972bd5061707b513575d6", "status": "current" }, { "id": "taxonomy-held-review", "path": "Projects/deep-research/output/theorem_complete_program_20260727/families/03-taxonomy-layer/final_scorecard_L7.md", "role": "held derivative scorecard", "sha256": "12c8626dec8bbe45a2060d8f50ef6dd68df986c0fbfe33de73dbd78295d92908", "status": "current" }, { "id": "taxonomy-dossier", "path": "Projects/deep-research/output/theorem_complete_program_20260727/families/03-taxonomy-layer/statement_dossier.md", "role": "claim and dependency dossier", "sha256": "85fc6453d3248b7c266711ba03ef33e32479f1ccd435a6641ff0f1069546394f", "status": "current" }, { "id": "boilerplate-held-source", "path": "Projects/deep-research/output/theorem_complete_program_20260727/families/04-boilerplate-collapse/boilerplate-collapse-v1.9.md", "role": "held theorem-program derivative", "sha256": "fd902ee91e53c6065f807cf7888611f61484842dd4689a43f3dbab6b0babde3b", "status": "current" }, { "id": "boilerplate-held-review", "path": "Projects/deep-research/output/theorem_complete_program_20260727/families/04-boilerplate-collapse/final_scorecard_L7.md", "role": "held derivative scorecard", "sha256": "4b81c3e535401c77cb2424581d1ae28ad0abab0aa6b7190317877c6d629eb85c", "status": "current" }, { "id": "boilerplate-dossier", "path": "Projects/deep-research/output/theorem_complete_program_20260727/families/04-boilerplate-collapse/statement_dossier.md", "role": "claim and proof dossier", "sha256": "e0f42e5b7edbf5e9bfa7a352aee8151a06ab0acd8af6c2dec4c8dc9b420c5051", "status": "current" }, { "id": "game-held-source", "path": "Projects/deep-research/output/theorem_complete_program_20260727/families/06-game-change/game-change-revised-v1.7.md", "role": "held theorem-program derivative", "sha256": "464650b1181c71e7685a169dd683f4e4b2593e17b295a44f84bcc63cc6dd310c", "status": "current" }, { "id": "game-held-review", "path": "Projects/deep-research/output/theorem_complete_program_20260727/families/06-game-change/final_scorecard_L7.md", "role": "held derivative scorecard", "sha256": "b6d8a83d1b03759b6409eb1dbd930fadfe30a21eb7db141a8509cdf1bb39792c", "status": "current" }, { "id": "fiscal-held-source", "path": "Projects/deep-research/output/theorem_complete_program_20260727/families/07-fiscal-capture/fiscal-capture-revised-v1.8.md", "role": "held theorem-program derivative", "sha256": "14b8fa7496a91658bee1c92adc5021f78cefe135da64750a0eed0867ac84c180", "status": "current" }, { "id": "fiscal-held-review", "path": "Projects/deep-research/output/theorem_complete_program_20260727/families/07-fiscal-capture/final_scorecard_L7.md", "role": "held derivative scorecard", "sha256": "3ecd365051a2392b36e8038c1f1c5cc4105b55031049e713a57e300aa3cd5e4e", "status": "current" }, { "id": "fiscal-universality-held-source", "path": "Projects/deep-research/output/theorem_complete_program_20260727/families/07-fiscal-capture/fiscal-capture-universality-revised-v1.4.md", "role": "unscored held companion derivative", "sha256": "ca8ae6beee11ba4c3d9a5d5fafa384142d6233b4e72caf40fa7c7a2bc94ee66e", "status": "held_unscored" }, { "id": "disclosure-held-source", "path": "Projects/deep-research/output/theorem_complete_program_20260727/families/05-disclosure-futility/disclosure-futility-theorem-v1.0.md", "role": "held theorem-program baseline", "sha256": "5ba99224350c0c40b0e55f41e4866edc20914719405ef61dbdd66fa4ccc4104b", "status": "current" }, { "id": "disclosure-held-review", "path": "Projects/deep-research/output/theorem_complete_program_20260727/families/05-disclosure-futility/final_scorecard_L0.md", "role": "held baseline scorecard", "sha256": "61818cdf90f6836d71779b1b7ddf08ff4f8e3c7e68bb40b12720adf6006bc4b6", "status": "current" }, { "id": "grit-held-source", "path": "Projects/deep-research/output/theorem_complete_program_20260727/families/08-general-ratchet-impossibility/general-ratchet-impossibility-revised-v1.7.md", "role": "held theorem-program derivative", "sha256": "0b781383903b056cb557c61efeb69689478e4a1c710c36b1a84c472af4c35d02", "status": "current" }, { "id": "grit-held-review", "path": "Projects/deep-research/output/theorem_complete_program_20260727/families/08-general-ratchet-impossibility/final_scorecard_L6.md", "role": "held derivative scorecard", "sha256": "5af27799a5bf95eec4365dad322dc83e994647d14e13d5aae43c7c4f2d02decd", "status": "current" }, { "id": "grit-dossier", "path": "Projects/deep-research/output/theorem_complete_program_20260727/families/08-general-ratchet-impossibility/statement_dossier.md", "role": "claim and proof dossier", "sha256": "5346d8987d9f1d123a63879d2d8ac6180064aed2777ef8afc43f08d18f8e6ddb", "status": "current" } ], "claims": [ { "artifactState": "public", "assumptions": [ "The complete declared input q is specified.", "The welfare coordinate W and its domain are specified.", "The claim concerns exact functional recovery on that domain." ], "boundaries": [ "The result does not say the target is unknowable.", "The result does not establish that an intervention improves outcomes." ], "claimClass": "proposition", "evidence": [ "The released paper supplies exact constructed witness pairs.", "Historical benchmark material motivates the application but does not establish every formal premise." ], "familyId": "missing-system-theorem", "formal": "For a declared input q and welfare coordinate W, there exists a function g with W = g composed with q exactly when W is constant on every q-fiber.", "id": "fiber-characterization", "label": "Proposition 4.1 · Fiber characterization", "learningCards": [ { "back": "Hold the declared input fixed. If the target changes inside that set, exact recovery from the input is impossible.", "front": "What is the fiber test?" }, { "back": "Show that the alleged witness differs somewhere in the rule's complete input, or that the target difference is unsupported.", "front": "What defeats an application?" } ], "objections": [ "A richer input may separate a pair that payoffs alone do not.", "Finite-resolution field data may support only approximate or partial identification." ], "plain": "A target can be recovered from a declared input exactly when the target never changes between two situations that the input treats as identical.", "proof": { "locator": "Section 4.1, Proposition 4.1", "note": "The result is the elementary factorization-through-fibers criterion; the paper's contribution is its institutional use and audit protocol.", "sourceId": "mst-release-source", "status": "complete_in_released_source" }, "reformImplications": [ "Declare the complete input before evaluating a rule.", "Add an independently verified separating signal when an existing fiber crosses the decision threshold." ], "relatedClaimIds": [ "w-independence", "declared-input-blindness", "target-recovery", "transformation-recoverability" ], "theoremVerification": "reviewed_not_verified" }, { "artifactState": "public", "assumptions": [ "A verified pair has equal total payoffs for every modeled party.", "The same pair has different values of W.", "The payoff vector is the complete input being tested." ], "boundaries": [ "The claim concerns exact recovery from payoffs.", "It does not exclude independent measurement of W." ], "claimClass": "corollary", "evidence": [ "The paper provides constructed exact witnesses.", "No domain-level SAPM measurement is admitted for public propagation." ], "familyId": "missing-system-theorem", "formal": "Under the payoff-level bridge premise, no function of the parties' payoff vector equals W at every profile in the domain.", "id": "w-independence", "label": "Corollary 4.3 · W-Independence", "learningCards": [ { "back": "An exact equal-payoff, different-welfare witness on the declared domain.", "front": "What extra premise bridges missing interests to non-recovery?" } ], "objections": [ "Interest non-inclusion does not by itself imply the payoff-level witness.", "A decomposed or enriched input requires its own fiber test." ], "plain": "One verified equal-payoff, different-welfare pair rules out exact recovery of system welfare from the payoff vector on the stated domain.", "proof": { "locator": "Section 4.3, Corollary 4.3", "note": "Direct application of the fiber characterization to the witness pair.", "sourceId": "mst-release-source", "status": "complete_in_released_source" }, "reformImplications": [ "Keep measurement, authority, and incentive design as separate steps." ], "relatedClaimIds": [ "fiber-characterization", "path-theorem", "outcome-taxonomy" ], "theoremVerification": "reviewed_not_verified" }, { "artifactState": "public", "assumptions": [ "Private dominance at the disagreement point.", "Strict welfare decline almost everywhere on every admissible private-improvement path.", "Absolute continuity of welfare along each path.", "Reachability of each private frontier point by an admissible path." ], "boundaries": [ "The result is conditional on the defined path class.", "It does not prohibit a transformed game from containing a system-preserving frontier." ], "claimClass": "theorem", "evidence": [ "A constructed full-hypothesis example is provided.", "The released review states that the historical material does not establish the full theorem premises." ], "familyId": "missing-system-theorem", "formal": "Under private dominance, strict pathwise system tension, regularity, and frontier reachability, W at every privately Pareto-efficient endpoint is strictly below W at disagreement.", "id": "path-theorem", "label": "Theorem 6.1 · Continuous path result", "learningCards": [ { "back": "The local welfare changes along an admissible path; a strictly negative integral yields a below-baseline endpoint.", "front": "What does the proof add up?" }, { "back": "A transformation that changes the information, payoff, or feasible-action structure and is separately audited.", "front": "What is the practical escape route?" } ], "objections": [ "The pathwise tension premise carries much of the endpoint conclusion.", "Empirical reachability and universal path signs are difficult to verify." ], "plain": "If welfare falls along every permitted path of private improvement and every private frontier point is reachable by such a regular path, every privately efficient endpoint lies below the stated welfare baseline.", "proof": { "locator": "Section 6.1, Theorem 6.1", "note": "Integrates the signed welfare derivative along each admissible path.", "sourceId": "mst-release-source", "status": "complete_in_released_source" }, "reformImplications": [ "Change information, payoffs, or feasible actions when a fixed game's verified path conditions are adverse.", "Re-test the transformed game rather than inheriting the original conclusion." ], "relatedClaimIds": [ "finite-path-theorem", "two-implementations", "ratchet-threshold" ], "theoremVerification": "reviewed_not_verified" }, { "artifactState": "public", "assumptions": [ "The complete declared input is enumerated.", "The two situations agree on that complete input.", "The target differs on the pair." ], "boundaries": [ "No named bargaining or mechanism procedure is covered until its complete input and output class are verified." ], "claimClass": "corollary", "evidence": [ "Application requires a rule-specific input audit." ], "familyId": "missing-system-theorem", "formal": "For a rule S on declared input q, equality of q on a pair forces equality of S(q) on that pair; a target difference then proves blindness to that distinction.", "id": "declared-input-blindness", "label": "Corollary 6.8 · Declared-input blindness", "learningCards": [ { "back": "The rule is a function of its input. Equal inputs force equal outputs.", "front": "Why can two different worlds receive the same decision?" } ], "objections": [ "A same-payoff witness does not establish equality of a richer solution concept's input." ], "plain": "A decision rule must return the same output for any two situations that are identical on everything the rule receives.", "proof": { "locator": "Section 6.4, Corollary 6.8", "note": "A function-evaluation consequence stated in profile and cross-game forms.", "sourceId": "mst-release-source", "status": "complete_in_released_source" }, "reformImplications": [ "Write the input contract for a decision procedure before claiming it can see a welfare distinction." ], "relatedClaimIds": [ "fiber-characterization", "price-input-variation", "transformation-recoverability" ], "theoremVerification": "reviewed_not_verified" }, { "artifactState": "public", "assumptions": [ "A finite transition relation is specified.", "Each permitted private-improvement step strictly lowers W.", "A permitted improvement chain reaches every relevant frontier point." ], "boundaries": [ "The discrete and continuous results are separate statements." ], "claimClass": "theorem", "evidence": [ "The transition relation is an empirical or institutional input to every application." ], "familyId": "missing-system-theorem", "formal": "Under private dominance, discrete pathwise tension, and finite reachability, every privately Pareto-efficient endpoint has welfare below the disagreement baseline.", "id": "finite-path-theorem", "label": "Theorem 7.1 · Finite path result", "learningCards": [ { "back": "A telescoping sum of welfare changes over permitted transitions.", "front": "What replaces the integral in the finite result?" } ], "objections": [ "A different protocol can remove a chain or add a system-preserving transition." ], "plain": "In a finite transition system, strict welfare loss at every permitted private-improvement step makes every reachable private frontier endpoint fall below baseline.", "proof": { "locator": "Section 7.1, Theorem 7.1", "note": "Uses a finite telescoping sum; no limiting argument is required.", "sourceId": "mst-release-source", "status": "complete_in_released_source" }, "reformImplications": [ "Protocol design can change the transition relation and therefore the theorem's applicability." ], "relatedClaimIds": [ "path-theorem", "two-implementations" ], "theoremVerification": "reviewed_not_verified" }, { "artifactState": "public", "assumptions": [ "The complete price-forming input is declared.", "The realized price is a function of that input on the stated domain." ], "boundaries": [ "Price variation is weaker than target recovery.", "Target recovery is weaker than outcome validity." ], "claimClass": "proposition", "evidence": [ "Institutional audits illustrate input and governance changes without claiming a cross-domain empirical result." ], "familyId": "missing-system-pricing-law", "formal": "Under the maintained price-input architecture, equal complete inputs imply equal realized prices.", "id": "price-input-variation", "label": "Proposition 1 · Input variation", "learningCards": [ { "back": "No. Response requires input variation; exact recovery requires the target to be constant on every input or price fiber.", "front": "Does a responsive price prove recovery?" } ], "objections": [ "A price can respond without recovering the analyst's target.", "An omitted public coordination signal means the declared input was incomplete." ], "plain": "A realized price can vary with a target only if the complete price-forming input varies with that target and the price map responds to the variation.", "proof": { "locator": "Section 4, Proposition 1", "note": "A direct consequence of the maintained functional architecture.", "sourceId": "pricing-release-source", "status": "complete_in_released_source" }, "reformImplications": [ "Enumerate measurement, valuation, rule-consequence, and anticipation routes separately." ], "relatedClaimIds": [ "target-recovery", "fiber-characterization" ], "theoremVerification": "reviewed_not_verified" }, { "artifactState": "public", "assumptions": [ "The decision target and domain are declared.", "The complete input and realized price maps are declared.", "The maintained decision rule is a function of the target." ], "boundaries": [ "The result is domain-specific.", "It supplies no public domain magnitude." ], "claimClass": "proposition", "evidence": [ "The paper gives falsification tests for equal-input and equal-price witness pairs." ], "familyId": "missing-system-pricing-law", "formal": "Target recovery is a factorization condition through q or P; decision recovery composes the recovered target with the maintained decision rule.", "id": "target-recovery", "label": "Proposition 2 and Corollary 3 · Target and decision recovery", "learningCards": [ { "back": "Can the input recover the target? Can the price recover it? Does the resulting decision work?", "front": "What are the three distinct checks?" } ], "objections": [ "A recovered target can still be misspecified.", "An implementable decision can still perform poorly." ], "plain": "A declared target is recoverable from the complete input or realized price exactly when it is constant on the corresponding fibers; a decision can then be reproduced when it is a stated function of that target.", "proof": { "locator": "Section 4, Proposition 2 and Corollary 3", "note": "Applies the fiber criterion separately to input, price, target, and decision.", "sourceId": "pricing-release-source", "status": "complete_in_released_source" }, "reformImplications": [ "Validate the target and outcomes after establishing information recovery." ], "relatedClaimIds": [ "price-input-variation", "disclosure-selection", "fiber-characterization" ], "theoremVerification": "reviewed_not_verified" }, { "artifactState": "public", "assumptions": [ "The disclosed coordinate is payoff-orthogonal in the formal sense.", "The game and continuation equilibria satisfy the proposition's finite Bayesian assumptions.", "The claim concerns selection among inherited continuation equilibria." ], "boundaries": [ "The result does not claim that disclosure creates new incentives.", "Richer dynamic trading or endogenous information acquisition lies outside the proposition." ], "claimClass": "proposition", "evidence": [ "The proposition is formal; application-specific disclosure effects require separate evidence." ], "familyId": "missing-system-pricing-law", "formal": "In the stated finite Bayesian setting, payoff-orthogonal public disclosure can alter equilibrium selection while leaving the inherited payoff and feasibility structure unchanged.", "id": "disclosure-selection", "label": "Proposition 4 · Payoff-orthogonal disclosure", "learningCards": [ { "back": "Yes, through public coordination among existing continuation equilibria under the proposition's assumptions.", "front": "Can information matter without changing payoffs?" } ], "objections": [ "Many real disclosures correlate with private costs or beliefs and fail payoff-orthogonality.", "Selection among inherited equilibria need not improve welfare." ], "plain": "Pure public disclosure can coordinate selection among existing continuation equilibria even when it changes no payoff or feasibility primitive.", "proof": { "locator": "Section 5, Proposition 4", "note": "The paper distinguishes information from a current payoff, rule, or anticipated consequence route.", "sourceId": "pricing-release-source", "status": "complete_in_released_source" }, "reformImplications": [ "Identify whether a disclosure changes measurement, payoffs, enforceability, anticipation, or equilibrium selection." ], "relatedClaimIds": [ "target-recovery", "transformation-recoverability" ], "theoremVerification": "reviewed_not_verified" }, { "artifactState": "public", "assumptions": [ "The institutional criterion and rule input are declared.", "The induced welfare measure is fixed for the application.", "Any added measurement channel is separately grounded." ], "boundaries": [ "The proposition does not establish a universal four-channel necessity theorem." ], "claimClass": "proposition", "evidence": [ "The released paper exhibits an exact witness inside its solved extraction game." ], "familyId": "changing-the-game", "formal": "Exact criterion classification factors through the declared input before and after an information transformation.", "id": "transformation-recoverability", "label": "Proposition 1 · Criterion recoverability under transformation", "learningCards": [ { "back": "The declared input and its fibers; the recovery test must be rerun on the new input.", "front": "What changes after an information transformation?" } ], "objections": [ "Information recovery does not supply enforcement authority.", "A richer inherited input may already separate the pair." ], "plain": "A rule can classify an institutional criterion exactly when that criterion is constant on every fiber of the rule's input; adding a verified measurement channel changes the fibers and therefore the test.", "proof": { "locator": "Section 4.1, Proposition 1", "note": "Applies the factorization criterion to an institutional welfare classifier.", "sourceId": "changing-release-source", "status": "complete_in_released_source" }, "reformImplications": [ "Audit information, payoff, feasible-action, and authority channels separately." ], "relatedClaimIds": [ "fiber-characterization", "two-implementations", "disclosure-selection" ], "theoremVerification": "reviewed_not_verified" }, { "artifactState": "public", "assumptions": [ "The quadratic extraction game and damage function are correctly specified.", "The charge is observable and enforceable.", "The caps are feasible and enforceable.", "The equilibrium concept and timing match the solved game." ], "boundaries": [ "The result belongs to the stated model.", "It is not a universal implementation theorem." ], "claimClass": "proposition", "evidence": [ "This is a solved model result.", "The six-case pilot reported a null for the diagnostic worksheet and is not evidence that these instruments work in a new domain." ], "familyId": "changing-the-game", "formal": "The specified payoff transformation and feasible-action transformation implement the unique optimum in the solved model.", "id": "two-implementations", "label": "Proposition 2 · Two implementations", "learningCards": [ { "back": "A payoff-channel charge and an enforceable feasible-action cap, under the model's stated assumptions.", "front": "What two channels implement the model optimum?" } ], "objections": [ "Application fails when observation, authority, or enforcement assumptions do not hold.", "The solved model does not identify the cheapest real institution." ], "plain": "In the paper's quadratic extraction game, a stated charge and enforceable action caps each implement the system-welfare optimum as the unique Nash equilibrium.", "proof": { "locator": "Section 5.6, Proposition 2", "note": "Solves both transformed games and compares their equilibrium with the welfare optimum.", "sourceId": "changing-release-source", "status": "complete_in_released_source" }, "reformImplications": [ "Choose the cheapest adequate channel only after measuring implementation cost, error, and enforcement response." ], "relatedClaimIds": [ "transformation-recoverability", "adoption-region", "path-theorem" ], "theoremVerification": "reviewed_not_verified" }, { "artifactState": "public", "assumptions": [ "Implementation cost and measurement error are specified.", "The enforcement response is estimated separately.", "The domain analysis recomputes the decision region." ], "boundaries": [ "No domain may inherit the paper's illustration without recomputation." ], "claimClass": "proposition", "evidence": [ "The paper supplies a computational pilot and preserves its null result." ], "familyId": "changing-the-game", "formal": "Adoption and instrument choice follow the net-welfare comparison in the stated decision model, with enforcement handled as a separate threshold.", "id": "adoption-region", "label": "Proposition 3 · Adoption and instrument choice", "learningCards": [ { "back": "An information or payoff design can be attractive on paper while authority or compliance remains insufficient.", "front": "Why is enforcement a separate threshold?" } ], "objections": [ "Misspecified costs, error, or enforcement response invalidate the inherited region." ], "plain": "The paper defines a bounded decision region for adopting an intervention after accounting for measurement error, implementation cost, and enforcement response.", "proof": { "locator": "Section 6, Proposition 3", "note": "A decision-model result rather than a universal institutional theorem.", "sourceId": "changing-release-source", "status": "complete_in_released_source" }, "reformImplications": [ "Keep diagnostic accuracy, instrument adoption, and enforcement feasibility as separate decisions." ], "relatedClaimIds": [ "two-implementations", "fiscal-boundary" ], "theoremVerification": "reviewed_not_verified" }, { "artifactState": "public", "assumptions": [ "The government's objective is continuously differentiable and strictly concave on the stated interval.", "All financing channels in the government-wide account are included.", "The marginal objects are measured in consistent units." ], "boundaries": [ "The result does not place a jurisdiction relative to its latent cutoff without measurement." ], "claimClass": "proposition", "evidence": [ "The released paper provides a worked treasury example and a prospective empirical protocol.", "It does not claim a completed causal study." ], "familyId": "fiscal-capture", "formal": "Under strict concavity and differentiability, the optimum is determined by the endpoint comparisons or the unique interior equality of marginal benefit and government-wide marginal financing cost.", "id": "fiscal-boundary", "label": "Proposition 1 · Fiscal-rule boundary", "learningCards": [ { "back": "Marginal reform benefit and the government-wide marginal financing cost.", "front": "What balances at an interior optimum?" } ], "objections": [ "Omitted replacement channels make the financing cost incomplete.", "A later held derivative's broader empirical claims remain under review and do not change this released artifact." ], "plain": "A treasury's reform optimum is at a boundary or at the unique interior point where marginal benefit equals the government-wide marginal financing cost.", "proof": { "locator": "Section 4.1, Proposition 1", "note": "A concave optimization boundary result.", "sourceId": "fiscal-release-source", "status": "complete_in_released_source" }, "reformImplications": [ "Build the government-wide financing account before diagnosing fiscal dependence." ], "relatedClaimIds": [ "conditional-remittance", "marginal-decoupling", "asset-account-identity" ], "theoremVerification": "reviewed_not_verified" }, { "artifactState": "public", "assumptions": [ "The financing rule is declared.", "Cross-effects on implementation cost and welfare weight are included.", "The local comparative-static conditions hold." ], "boundaries": [ "The proposition applies to the declared financing rule and nothing broader." ], "claimClass": "proposition", "evidence": [ "The proposition is formal; the empirical program is prospective." ], "familyId": "fiscal-capture", "formal": "The sign of the remittance comparative static is conditional on the declared financing rule and its cross-effects.", "id": "conditional-remittance", "label": "Proposition 2 · Conditional remittance effect", "learningCards": [ { "back": "No. The sign depends on the financing rule and the model's derivative condition.", "front": "Is a larger remittance always a stronger barrier to reform?" } ], "objections": [ "A remittance level alone does not identify the sign.", "Strategic and dynamic effects require additional modeling." ], "plain": "A stronger remittance lowers reform only under the paper's stated derivative condition; a policy-contingent financing rule can make the direct remittance effect vanish.", "proof": { "locator": "Section 4.2, Proposition 2", "note": "Derives the sign condition and states the policy-contingent boundary.", "sourceId": "fiscal-release-source", "status": "complete_in_released_source" }, "reformImplications": [ "Trace how the financing rule changes incentives, costs, and available replacement resources." ], "relatedClaimIds": [ "fiscal-boundary", "marginal-decoupling" ], "theoremVerification": "reviewed_not_verified" }, { "artifactState": "public", "assumptions": [ "The reform point and all financing channels are specified.", "The relevant marginal contributions are measured.", "The condition is evaluated locally." ], "boundaries": [ "The claim is local and does not establish a durable dynamic exit." ], "claimClass": "proposition", "evidence": [ "Institutional routing can motivate the condition but does not measure it by itself." ], "familyId": "fiscal-capture", "formal": "At the stated reform point, the fiscal contribution to the marginal objective is zero exactly under the proposition's government-wide marginal condition.", "id": "marginal-decoupling", "label": "Proposition 3 · Government-wide marginal decoupling", "learningCards": [ { "back": "An accounting and routing structure; it does not by itself prove marginal decoupling.", "front": "What does a fund prove by itself?" } ], "objections": [ "A statutory routing change is not equivalent to an estimated zero marginal fiscal contribution." ], "plain": "Fiscal decoupling is a local condition on the government-wide marginal objective, not a label supplied by the existence of a fund.", "proof": { "locator": "Section 4.3, Proposition 3", "note": "A local identity in the stated government-wide account.", "sourceId": "fiscal-release-source", "status": "complete_in_released_source" }, "reformImplications": [ "Measure the marginal financing effect after institutional routing changes." ], "relatedClaimIds": [ "asset-account-identity", "fiscal-boundary" ], "theoremVerification": "reviewed_not_verified" }, { "artifactState": "public", "assumptions": [ "The withdrawal rule is predetermined.", "The asset stock is fixed when current reform is chosen.", "The claim concerns the current decision, not future political dynamics." ], "boundaries": [ "The identity does not establish causality or constitutional entrenchment." ], "claimClass": "proposition", "evidence": [ "The Norway section is an institutional illustration and explicitly does not prove a universal remedy." ], "familyId": "fiscal-capture", "formal": "Under the proposition's timing assumptions, the current withdrawal term is fixed with respect to the current reform choice.", "id": "asset-account-identity", "label": "Proposition 4 · Contemporaneous asset-account identity", "learningCards": [ { "back": "Because a predetermined withdrawal from a fixed stock is constant with respect to the current reform choice.", "front": "Why can more available cash leave the current reform derivative unchanged?" } ], "objections": [ "Future withdrawals, rule changes, and political expectations can create dynamic effects outside the identity." ], "plain": "When the withdrawal rule is predetermined and the asset stock is fixed at the current reform decision, a fund can add current resources without changing the direct current reform derivative.", "proof": { "locator": "Section 4.4, Proposition 4", "note": "A contemporaneous accounting identity with an explicit dynamic boundary.", "sourceId": "fiscal-release-source", "status": "complete_in_released_source" }, "reformImplications": [ "Separate current-account arithmetic from dynamic commitment and political effects." ], "relatedClaimIds": [ "marginal-decoupling", "fiscal-boundary" ], "theoremVerification": "reviewed_not_verified" }, { "artifactState": "held", "assumptions": [ "The baseline and each indicator are declared.", "Cell assignment is an accounting classification." ], "boundaries": [ "The taxonomy does not prove cell occupancy for a domain.", "The historical phase-one graph is not a final relationship authority." ], "claimClass": "definition", "evidence": [ "No domain cell assignment is admitted from quarantined numerical material." ], "familyId": "taxonomy-layer", "formal": "The classification table enumerates the binary triples for the system coordinate and the two party indicators.", "id": "outcome-taxonomy", "label": "Eight-cell outcome taxonomy", "learningCards": [ { "back": "Party outcomes and system welfare can move differently; collapsing them loses the distinction the taxonomy is meant to preserve.", "front": "Why keep three coordinates?" } ], "objections": [ "A label can conceal uncertainty in the underlying coordinates.", "The projection that drops the system coordinate cannot recover it without external measurement." ], "plain": "The taxonomy records system-welfare status and two party-outcome indicators as three separate coordinates, producing eight outcome cells.", "proof": { "locator": "Sections 1–2", "note": "The dossier states that the taxonomy is definitional and claims no theorem of its own.", "sourceId": "taxonomy-dossier", "status": "definition" }, "reformImplications": [ "Report all three coordinates and their evidence status before using an outcome label." ], "relatedClaimIds": [ "classification-rule", "w-independence" ], "theoremVerification": "not_applicable" }, { "artifactState": "held", "assumptions": [ "The constitutive condition is evaluated from source evidence.", "A named precedent is proved rather than asserted.", "The result remains provisional until the coding evidence is reviewed." ], "boundaries": [ "No public domain count is generated from the held register." ], "claimClass": "definition", "evidence": [ "The corpus contains conflicting classifications and requires adjudication." ], "familyId": "taxonomy-layer", "formal": "The sorting rule uses the stated constitutive condition and precedent evidence to assign a provisional class.", "id": "classification-rule", "label": "Impossibility–intractability classifier", "learningCards": [ { "back": "No. It is a definitional sorting rule whose inputs must be audited.", "front": "Is the classifier a theorem?" } ], "objections": [ "A mislabeled or weak precedent changes the classification.", "A rule-defeatable constraint does not establish impossibility." ], "plain": "The classifier sorts a domain using a declared constitutive-identity condition and evidence of a proven policy precedent; it is a research coding rule, not a theorem.", "proof": { "locator": "Sections 2–3", "note": "The dossier explicitly denies theorem status and withholds domain counts.", "sourceId": "taxonomy-dossier", "status": "definition" }, "reformImplications": [ "Treat classification as a review queue with source-backed reasons." ], "relatedClaimIds": [ "outcome-taxonomy", "ratchet-threshold" ], "theoremVerification": "not_applicable" }, { "artifactState": "held", "assumptions": [ "Inference uses the record channel stated in the model.", "The two modeled types have identical record distributions.", "No unmodeled type-dependent scoring signal is available." ], "boundaries": [ "The held branch cannot be presented as verified or public.", "Collapse of one record channel does not imply all evidence channels collapse." ], "claimClass": "theorem", "evidence": [ "The held manuscript supplies formal derivations and motivating disclosure studies.", "It contains no original parameter estimates." ], "familyId": "boilerplate-collapse", "formal": "Equality of the two record distributions makes the posterior equal the prior almost surely and gives zero mutual information between type and record.", "id": "record-collapse", "label": "Record-channel collapse", "learningCards": [ { "back": "The modeled types produce the same record distribution, so observing the record does not update the prior.", "front": "What makes a record channel uninformative?" } ], "objections": [ "The current type model can conflate process quality with record honesty.", "A truthful record of a poor process is a distinct case." ], "plain": "When good- and low-quality process types generate the same record distribution, a record-only evaluator learns nothing from the record and cannot beat the prior.", "proof": { "locator": "Theorem 1, Parts 1–3", "note": "The dossier verifies the core Bayesian collapse argument. The later frozen branch remains held because other theorem parts and assumptions have unresolved defects.", "sourceId": "boilerplate-dossier", "status": "core_complete_branch_held" }, "reformImplications": [ "Design separately for process quality, record truthfulness, provenance, and evaluator usability." ], "relatedClaimIds": [ "anchored-record-boundary", "fiber-characterization" ], "theoremVerification": "not_established" }, { "artifactState": "held", "assumptions": [ "Anchors are costly to defeat.", "Good-faith participation is preserved.", "Evaluators can use the anchor.", "Joint detection across multiple anchors is modeled correctly." ], "boundaries": [ "Do not cite the multiple-anchor sufficiency claim until repaired and rescored." ], "claimClass": "held_result", "evidence": [ "The core single-channel algebra is documented.", "The multiple-anchor optimization needs a joint model." ], "familyId": "boilerplate-collapse", "formal": "The branch claims an anchored constraint can enlarge a likelihood gap under stated cost and usability conditions; its response-invariant multiple-anchor sufficiency requires repair.", "id": "anchored-record-boundary", "label": "Anchored-record boundary", "learningCards": [ { "back": "If an existing check already detects with certainty, the survival probability reaching the second check is zero.", "front": "Why can a second anchor add nothing?" } ], "objections": [ "An existing perfect check can make another checked anchor add no expected cost.", "The model needs separate dimensions for process quality and record honesty." ], "plain": "Usable anchored constraints can lower the threshold for producing informative records, but the current multiple-anchor extension is not valid as stated.", "proof": { "locator": "Blocker 1", "note": "The independent review found that the marginal detection term omits survival from existing checks, invalidating the multiple-anchor sufficiency claim.", "sourceId": "boilerplate-held-review", "status": "held_with_confirmed_gap" }, "reformImplications": [ "Model joint detection and survival probabilities before stacking audit anchors." ], "relatedClaimIds": [ "record-collapse", "classification-rule" ], "theoremVerification": "not_established" }, { "artifactState": "held", "assumptions": [ "The bilateral game, decision rule, system coordinate, and guarantee are specified.", "Each branch needs its stated selection, monotonicity, or equilibrium conditions." ], "boundaries": [ "The family is a held baseline with eight blockers and no public or verified theorem state.", "Source magnitudes are quarantined; the app exposes none." ], "claimClass": "held_theorem", "evidence": [ "Five cases and literature bridges illustrate the question but do not establish the theorem." ], "familyId": "disclosure-futility", "formal": "Under bilateral payoff closure and one of overload, strategic-noise, or payoff-exclusion conditions, the manuscript claims that no mandatory disclosure requirement guarantees system-welfare incorporation or conversion of its adverse outcome class.", "id": "disclosure-futility-claim", "label": "Theorem 1 · Disclosure Futility (held)", "learningCards": [ { "back": "The game, information, incentives, decision rule, equilibrium, and covered interventions.", "front": "What must a disclosure impossibility result specify?" }, { "back": "Its baseline proof does not support its full quantifiers and equilibrium conclusion, and concrete disclosure designs survive as counterexamples.", "front": "Why is this theorem held?" } ], "objections": [ "Structured, capped, salient, audited, or machine-processed disclosures can defeat the universal reading.", "Information can change behavior through beliefs, strategies, enforcement, or payoff-relevant consequences." ], "plain": "The manuscript claims that mandatory disclosure cannot guarantee system-welfare consideration under three failure mechanisms. Its proof does not establish the theorem as written.", "proof": { "locator": "Sections 3–5; blockers 1–3 and 7", "note": "The scorecard finds quantifier, inference, assumption, and equilibrium failures plus surviving structured-disclosure counterexamples.", "sourceId": "disclosure-held-review", "status": "invalid_as_stated" }, "reformImplications": [ "Define the game and separate information, incentives, verification, consequences, and authority." ], "relatedClaimIds": [ "double-futility-composition", "record-collapse", "disclosure-selection", "declared-input-blindness" ], "theoremVerification": "not_established" }, { "artifactState": "held", "assumptions": [ "The structural Disclosure Futility theorem is valid for the declared game.", "The record model separates quality, truthfulness, costs, and approval.", "The mechanisms are proved under one cost model and shown to be independent." ], "boundaries": [ "No public policy conclusion follows from this held composition.", "Boilerplate Collapse requires its own frozen scorecard." ], "claimClass": "held_theorem", "evidence": [ "Disclosure studies motivate the branch; no admitted causal test establishes the composition." ], "familyId": "disclosure-futility", "formal": "The manuscript claims that bilateral payoff closure plus one disclosure-failure condition and a boilerplate-cost condition yield independent structural and informational failures.", "id": "double-futility-composition", "label": "Theorem 2 · Double Futility composition (held)", "learningCards": [ { "back": "When a component is unproved or the link needs unstated assumptions.", "front": "When does a composition theorem fail?" } ], "objections": [ "A truthful, well-anchored record of a poor process separates record truthfulness from process quality.", "Capacity, audit probability, and anchor choices can change the record equilibrium." ], "plain": "The manuscript combines its disputed structural claim with a boilerplate-convergence branch. Both components have open formal defects.", "proof": { "locator": "Theorem 2 assessment; blockers 1–4", "note": "The structural theorem is unproved; Boilerplate Collapse separately remains held with four blockers.", "sourceId": "disclosure-held-review", "status": "composition_not_established" }, "reformImplications": [ "Test each proposed failure mechanism separately before composing them.", "Use one record-cost model and define the reform's causal channel." ], "relatedClaimIds": [ "disclosure-futility-claim", "record-collapse", "anchored-record-boundary" ], "theoremVerification": "not_established" }, { "artifactState": "held", "assumptions": [ "A positive unit reversal-cost floor.", "A finite, non-increasing reversal-capacity ceiling.", "A stated reachable range.", "A positive drift floor only for the speed-to-threshold corollary." ], "boundaries": [ "The result concerns resource incapacity, not physical impossibility.", "No domain is placed above or below its threshold." ], "claimClass": "held_theorem", "evidence": [ "All named domain instances remain conjectured in the dossier.", "No domain threshold or magnitude is admitted." ], "familyId": "general-ratchet-impossibility", "formal": "The unbounded-state branch derives a persistent crossing from the cost floor and capacity ceiling; the bounded-state branch makes threshold existence conditional on the endpoint comparison.", "id": "ratchet-threshold", "label": "Theorem 5.1 · Ratchet threshold", "learningCards": [ { "back": "Threshold existence becomes an empirical endpoint condition; it no longer follows from accumulation alone.", "front": "What changes in a bounded state space?" } ], "objections": [ "Capacity can grow faster than reversal cost.", "A bounded state may never cross before its endpoint.", "A declining unit reversal cost can keep total reversal cost bounded." ], "plain": "With a positive reversal-cost floor, bounded non-increasing reversal capacity, and sufficient reachable range, cumulative reversal cost eventually exceeds capacity; a bounded state has a threshold only when the endpoint inequality actually holds.", "proof": { "locator": "Section 1, revised Theorem 5.1", "note": "The dossier repairs the source theorem's missing assumptions and separates unbounded from bounded states. The exact-hash L6 review scored the derivative below its governing gate.", "sourceId": "grit-dossier", "status": "reviewed_held" }, "reformImplications": [ "Measure reversal cost, capacity, and reachable range before using a ratchet label.", "Intervene before a supported threshold and strengthen reversal capacity." ], "relatedClaimIds": [ "classification-rule", "path-theorem" ], "theoremVerification": "not_established" } ], "corpus": { "entries": [], "summary": { "classes": { "EPONYM_BANNED": 59, "EXTERNAL": 13, "INTERNAL": 2316, "RETIRED_NAME": 1, "USAGE_PHRASE": 2055 }, "entries": 4444, "provisional": 4289, "reconciled": 155, "topDispositions": [ { "count": 2163, "label": "PROVISIONAL DEMOTE (paper-level result)" }, { "count": 2055, "label": "DROP (usage-phrase artifact)" }, { "count": 65, "label": "DEMOTE(paper-local result; per A.4 long-tail rule — citable only as Theorem N of )" }, { "count": 58, "label": "MERGE into missing-system-pricing-law (rename)" }, { "count": 30, "label": "KEEP AND STRENGTHEN" }, { "count": 16, "label": "DEMOTE" }, { "count": 13, "label": "ARCHIVE AS EXTERNAL PREDECESSOR" }, { "count": 8, "label": "REBUILD" }, { "count": 3, "label": "MERGE(into Disclosure Futility Theorem) — Section B merge map" }, { "count": 3, "label": "DEMOTE(paper-local result)" }, { "count": 2, "label": "DEMOTE(paper-local result; long-tail welfare-theorem coinage)" }, { "count": 2, "label": "MERGE(into Disclosure Futility Theorem cluster, pending audit) — Section B" } ] } }, "doctrine": { "numericPropagation": "All 61 domain rows are held and quarantined. The current-state gate failed closed: 12/12 current-path provenance controls pass, while five of nine historical control families remain nonpassing with 44 numerical blockers and no admitted simulation or public propagation.", "stateDefinitions": { "held": "A scored or audited artifact remains below its governing gate or has open blockers.", "public": "Exact frozen working-paper artifact passed its stated public-release gate.", "review": "A branch is under scientific review and has no current release decision." }, "verification": "A public working-paper release decision applies only to its exact frozen artifact. The stronger theorem-verification label requires independent Sol and Fable reviews of the same frozen theorem version, each at least 95 with zero blockers. App completeness and numerical propagation are separate gates." }, "families": [ { "appCompleteness": "mapped", "artifactState": "public", "claimIds": [ "fiber-characterization", "w-independence", "path-theorem", "declared-input-blindness", "finite-path-theorem" ], "id": "missing-system-theorem", "kind": "formal_core", "numericPropagation": "held", "shortTitle": "MST", "summary": "Separates two questions: whether a declared input can recover system welfare, and whether permitted private-improvement paths end below a system-welfare baseline.", "theoremVerification": "not_established", "title": "The Missing System Theorem", "versions": [ { "artifactState": "public", "blockers": 0, "formalScore": null, "id": "mst-public-v1.3.2", "lineage": "released", "majors": 0, "note": "Cleared for public working-paper release. The review does not satisfy the stronger same-hash Sol/Fable theorem-verification doctrine.", "relationship": "released_lineage", "reviewId": "mst-release-review", "score": 95, "sourceId": "mst-release-source", "version": "1.3.2" }, { "artifactState": "held", "blockers": 6, "formalScore": null, "id": "mst-audit-v1.9", "lineage": "theorem_program_audit", "majors": null, "note": "Seeded from the earlier MST v1.3 branch. No exact-hash record authorizes it to supersede released v1.3.2.", "relationship": "audit_derivative", "reviewId": "mst-held-review", "score": 74, "sourceId": "mst-held-source", "version": "1.9" } ] }, { "appCompleteness": "mapped", "artifactState": "public", "claimIds": [ "price-input-variation", "target-recovery", "disclosure-selection" ], "id": "missing-system-pricing-law", "kind": "companion_formal_paper", "numericPropagation": "held", "shortTitle": "Pricing Law", "summary": "Audits whether a declared decision target can be recovered from a price-forming input or the realized price, then separates information recovery from implementation and outcome quality.", "theoremVerification": "not_established", "title": "The Missing-System Pricing Law", "versions": [ { "artifactState": "public", "blockers": 0, "formalScore": null, "id": "pricing-public-v2.4", "lineage": "released", "majors": null, "note": "Cleared for public working-paper release. Production deployment was a separate step in the reviewed record.", "relationship": "released_lineage", "reviewId": "pricing-release-review", "score": 96, "sourceId": "pricing-release-source", "version": "2.4" }, { "artifactState": "held", "blockers": 4, "formalScore": null, "id": "pricing-audit-v2.7", "lineage": "theorem_program_audit", "majors": null, "note": "Built from the theorem-program v2.0 branch. The L7 scorecard records four open blockers, and no exact-hash record authorizes this derivative to supersede the separately released v2.4.", "relationship": "audit_derivative", "reviewId": "pricing-held-review", "score": 61, "sourceId": "pricing-held-source", "version": "2.7" } ] }, { "appCompleteness": "mapped", "artifactState": "public", "claimIds": [ "transformation-recoverability", "two-implementations", "adoption-region" ], "id": "changing-the-game", "kind": "institutional_transformation", "numericPropagation": "held", "shortTitle": "Game Change", "summary": "Defines four transformation channels, solves a bounded extraction game, and separates information, payoff, feasibility, and authority changes.", "theoremVerification": "not_established", "title": "Changing the Game", "versions": [ { "artifactState": "public", "blockers": 0, "formalScore": 25, "id": "changing-public-v1.4", "lineage": "released", "majors": 0, "note": "Fresh independent review cleared the manifest-defined frozen working-paper candidate.", "relationship": "released_lineage", "reviewId": "changing-release-review", "score": 96, "sourceId": "changing-release-source", "version": "1.4" }, { "artifactState": "held", "blockers": 4, "formalScore": null, "id": "game-audit-v1.7", "lineage": "theorem_program_audit", "majors": null, "note": "Derived from the earlier combined game-change source bank. Its L7 review identifies a missing behavioral role for information and three further blockers. The released v1.4 remains a separate exact-hash synthesis.", "relationship": "audit_derivative", "reviewId": "game-held-review", "score": 63, "sourceId": "game-held-source", "version": "1.7" } ] }, { "appCompleteness": "mapped", "artifactState": "public", "claimIds": [ "fiscal-boundary", "conditional-remittance", "marginal-decoupling", "asset-account-identity" ], "id": "fiscal-capture", "kind": "government_financing_model", "numericPropagation": "held", "shortTitle": "Fiscal Capture", "summary": "Models a treasury's government-wide reform decision, conditional remittance effects, local fiscal decoupling, and the boundary of a contemporaneous fund identity.", "theoremVerification": "not_established", "title": "Fiscal Dependence and Reform under Fiscal Rules", "versions": [ { "artifactState": "public", "blockers": 0, "formalScore": 20, "id": "fiscal-public-v1.5", "lineage": "released", "majors": null, "note": "Cleared as a frozen working-paper package. The review kept journal contribution and deployment as separate decisions.", "relationship": "released_lineage", "reviewId": "fiscal-release-review", "score": 95, "sourceId": "fiscal-release-source", "version": "1.5" }, { "artifactState": "held", "blockers": 10, "formalScore": null, "id": "fiscal-audit-v1.8", "lineage": "theorem_program_audit", "majors": null, "note": "Derived from the earlier journal-submission source family. Its L7 review records ten blockers and no empirical jurisdiction past the modeled cutoff. No exact-hash record authorizes it to supersede the released rebuild.", "relationship": "audit_derivative", "reviewId": "fiscal-held-review", "score": 61, "sourceId": "fiscal-held-source", "version": "1.8" }, { "artifactState": "held", "blockers": null, "formalScore": null, "id": "fiscal-universality-audit-v1.4", "lineage": "theorem_program_companion", "majors": null, "note": "The theorem-program directory also freezes this universality companion. The L7 independent scorecard was explicitly confined to the principal v1.8 manuscript, so this companion has no inherited score or release implication.", "relationship": "unscored_companion", "reviewId": null, "score": null, "sourceId": "fiscal-universality-held-source", "version": "1.4" } ] }, { "appCompleteness": "mapped", "artifactState": "held", "claimIds": [ "outcome-taxonomy", "classification-rule" ], "id": "taxonomy-layer", "kind": "definitions_and_classifier", "numericPropagation": "held", "shortTitle": "Taxonomy", "summary": "Keeps outcome-cell accounting separate from an impossibility/intractability sorting rule and records the evidence required to classify an application.", "theoremVerification": "not_applicable", "title": "Outcome Taxonomy and Classifier", "versions": [ { "artifactState": "held", "blockers": 5, "formalScore": null, "id": "taxonomy-audit-v1.6", "lineage": "theorem_program_audit", "majors": null, "note": "The L7 derivative confines the classifier to one industry–channel pair and reports five open blockers, including an unresolved semantic gap and no domain aggregation rule. It remains held.", "relationship": "audit_derivative", "reviewId": "taxonomy-held-review", "score": 75, "sourceId": "taxonomy-held-source", "version": "1.6" } ] }, { "appCompleteness": "mapped", "artifactState": "held", "claimIds": [ "record-collapse", "anchored-record-boundary" ], "id": "boilerplate-collapse", "kind": "information_and_record_model", "numericPropagation": "held", "shortTitle": "Boilerplate", "summary": "Studies when record channels collapse to the prior and when anchored, usable constraints can create a likelihood gap.", "theoremVerification": "not_established", "title": "Boilerplate Collapse", "versions": [ { "artifactState": "held", "blockers": 4, "formalScore": null, "id": "boilerplate-audit-v1.9", "lineage": "theorem_program_audit", "majors": null, "note": "The L7 review records a third consecutive score decline. The base threshold model remains inconsistent with the optimized joint anchor-defeat model, and four blockers remain open.", "relationship": "audit_derivative", "reviewId": "boilerplate-held-review", "score": 60, "sourceId": "boilerplate-held-source", "version": "1.9" } ] }, { "appCompleteness": "mapped", "artifactState": "held", "claimIds": [ "disclosure-futility-claim", "double-futility-composition" ], "id": "disclosure-futility", "kind": "mandatory_disclosure_model", "numericPropagation": "quarantined_source_scrubbed_from_app", "shortTitle": "Disclosure Futility", "summary": "Tests an impossibility claim for mandatory disclosure under overload, strategic noise, and payoff closure. Its proof, equilibrium, policy, and empirical mappings require repair.", "theoremVerification": "not_established", "title": "Disclosure Futility", "versions": [ { "artifactState": "held", "blockers": 8, "formalScore": null, "id": "disclosure-audit-v1.0", "lineage": "theorem_program_baseline", "majors": null, "note": "The L0 review records eight blockers, one critical reader desert, and quarantined source numbers. The app exposes only the qualitative held record.", "relationship": "baseline_derivative", "reviewId": "disclosure-held-review", "score": 31, "sourceId": "disclosure-held-source", "version": "1.0" } ] }, { "appCompleteness": "mapped", "artifactState": "held", "claimIds": [ "ratchet-threshold" ], "id": "general-ratchet-impossibility", "kind": "threshold_model", "numericPropagation": "held", "shortTitle": "GRIT", "summary": "States conditions under which cumulative reversal cost eventually exceeds a bounded, non-increasing reversal capacity, and separates unbounded from bounded state spaces.", "theoremVerification": "not_established", "title": "General Ratchet Impossibility", "versions": [ { "artifactState": "held", "blockers": 4, "formalScore": null, "id": "grit-audit-v1.7", "lineage": "theorem_program_audit", "majors": null, "note": "The exact-hash L6 review records a 64/100 result and unresolved structural and corpus-level blockers. The family remains held.", "relationship": "audit_derivative", "reviewId": "grit-held-review", "score": 64, "sourceId": "grit-held-source", "version": "1.7" } ] } ], "historicalGraph": { "authorityId": "phase1-graph", "edges": 147, "nodes": 109, "note": "Phase 1 graph. Rebuilt from frozen results in Phase 4 as FINAL_THEOREM_DEPENDENCY_GRAPH.json.", "status": "historical_incomplete" }, "lineageEdges": [ { "authority": "No exact-hash supersession record; preserve both states.", "from": "mst-public-v1.3.2", "kind": "parallel_audit_branch", "to": "mst-audit-v1.9" }, { "authority": "Same-family version labels collide across different hashes; preserve the released source.", "from": "pricing-public-v2.4", "kind": "parallel_audit_branch", "to": "pricing-audit-v2.7" }, { "authority": "Released v1.4 is a separate synthesis; the theorem-program branch derives from the older combined source bank.", "from": "changing-public-v1.4", "kind": "parallel_audit_branch", "to": "game-audit-v1.7" }, { "authority": "Released v1.5 is a separate rebuild; no exact-hash supersession record connects the branches.", "from": "fiscal-public-v1.5", "kind": "parallel_audit_branch", "to": "fiscal-audit-v1.8" }, { "authority": "The L7 scorecard is confined to v1.8 and supplies no score or release decision for the companion v1.4 artifact.", "from": "fiscal-audit-v1.8", "kind": "unscored_companion", "to": "fiscal-universality-audit-v1.4" } ], "quarantine": { "admittedSimulations": 0, "agentOsSha256": "5657d32eff145bbaff951f2360d0882a2e71dedcaec923de28b96f4b0f178be1", "artifactHashesChecked": 43, "authoritySha256": "770b35d635cc968405cb00422478b36f72aa0bd30709e47384c43fccbe2ce0b4", "authorizedPublicPropagations": 0, "currentControlFamiliesNonpass": 5, "currentControlFamiliesPassed": 4, "currentDashboardValidationSha256": "0e4a9c09535556d09e060e35634d2743aa80146da9851cd9ad26a67807d04b7e", "currentNumericalBlockers": 44, "currentPathControlsPassed": 12, "currentPathControlsTotal": 12, "currentSourceIdentityDivergences": 39, "currentSourceIdentityMatches": 22, "currentSourceReconciliationSha256": "442deb5d700adcbbf267037940db13767d453735b40f62fe366a2d3c6869d98e", "currentSourceReconciliationValidationSha256": "adf2de544a8e5bbc052c9e3375921446962fb0b64d2d85223549d6fada0b46bd", "currentStateGateRunnerSha256": "4618b74dd77a65414842c30f94ebd9135e1d1c593eebeca4ffde0e5172f6bfd3", "currentStateGateSha256": "01569a19841be7f505abe3c2555ef0c5565699a594523df8605cdd605c45ea0a", "currentStateStatus": "HOLD_CURRENT_VALIDATION_FAILED_CLOSED", "currentTieoutValidationSha256": "6a50446550556b7d425c131431f0d097ca7c6b15dd6e72473fd245ee88c70846", "currentValidatorInventorySha256": "84444c02712abcaccc5ea7102dff214c0e21f8a43e76e2d841cb14cbf0480a42", "errors": 0, "heldDomains": 61, "originalControlTreesUnchanged": true, "rolloverPinSha256": "335bf90f659cb70d7aecdc7d4be92cac4705679eb79eea6d39f3756ddba7288f", "rolloverPinValidationSha256": "a4b4f1ed897573d7989d35942750142de2a03ccf93e36a6fde71a790aaa5dc56", "status": "held_fail_closed", "takeoverStatusValidationSha256": "1833324119d9528baacab48c174d0d38a5a2673d0b4ba8f88902427065bd0645", "uniqueDomains": 61, "validationSha256": "4b4dec48506e470475f9726e26a8b51ece6012a2ca4cf33a4b73259842427c53", "validationStatus": "PASS", "versionedCandidateObjects": 314, "versionedManifestSha256": "0a849049cc1085d54d1b1947ccd72b01c2b1cf4ddd8dbc542a14d6c95a983c8d", "versionedValidationSha256": "5b34aa136e0ac82872aff42f5ae2d821778505f70064751aed409a4b2de1b7ba" }, "relationships": { "edges": [ { "from": "missing-system-theorem", "kind": "has_version", "to": "mst-public-v1.3.2" }, { "from": "missing-system-theorem", "kind": "has_version", "to": "mst-audit-v1.9" }, { "from": "missing-system-pricing-law", "kind": "has_version", "to": "pricing-public-v2.4" }, { "from": "missing-system-pricing-law", "kind": "has_version", "to": "pricing-audit-v2.7" }, { "from": "changing-the-game", "kind": "has_version", "to": "changing-public-v1.4" }, { "from": "changing-the-game", "kind": "has_version", "to": "game-audit-v1.7" }, { "from": "fiscal-capture", "kind": "has_version", "to": "fiscal-public-v1.5" }, { "from": "fiscal-capture", "kind": "has_version", "to": "fiscal-audit-v1.8" }, { "from": "fiscal-capture", "kind": "has_version", "to": "fiscal-universality-audit-v1.4" }, { "from": "taxonomy-layer", "kind": "has_version", "to": "taxonomy-audit-v1.6" }, { "from": "boilerplate-collapse", "kind": "has_version", "to": "boilerplate-audit-v1.9" }, { "from": "disclosure-futility", "kind": "has_version", "to": "disclosure-audit-v1.0" }, { "from": "general-ratchet-impossibility", "kind": "has_version", "to": "grit-audit-v1.7" }, { "from": "missing-system-theorem", "kind": "contains_claim", "to": "fiber-characterization" }, { "from": "fiber-characterization", "kind": "related", "to": "w-independence" }, { "from": "declared-input-blindness", "kind": "related", "to": "fiber-characterization" }, { "from": "fiber-characterization", "kind": "related", "to": "target-recovery" }, { "from": "fiber-characterization", "kind": "related", "to": "transformation-recoverability" }, { "from": "missing-system-theorem", "kind": "contains_claim", "to": "w-independence" }, { "from": "path-theorem", "kind": "related", "to": "w-independence" }, { "from": "outcome-taxonomy", "kind": "related", "to": "w-independence" }, { "from": "missing-system-theorem", "kind": "contains_claim", "to": "path-theorem" }, { "from": "finite-path-theorem", "kind": "related", "to": "path-theorem" }, { "from": "path-theorem", "kind": "related", "to": "two-implementations" }, { "from": "path-theorem", "kind": "related", "to": "ratchet-threshold" }, { "from": "missing-system-theorem", "kind": "contains_claim", "to": "declared-input-blindness" }, { "from": "declared-input-blindness", "kind": "related", "to": "price-input-variation" }, { "from": "declared-input-blindness", "kind": "related", "to": "transformation-recoverability" }, { "from": "missing-system-theorem", "kind": "contains_claim", "to": "finite-path-theorem" }, { "from": "finite-path-theorem", "kind": "related", "to": "two-implementations" }, { "from": "missing-system-pricing-law", "kind": "contains_claim", "to": "price-input-variation" }, { "from": "price-input-variation", "kind": "related", "to": "target-recovery" }, { "from": "fiber-characterization", "kind": "related", "to": "price-input-variation" }, { "from": "missing-system-pricing-law", "kind": "contains_claim", "to": "target-recovery" }, { "from": "disclosure-selection", "kind": "related", "to": "target-recovery" }, { "from": "missing-system-pricing-law", "kind": "contains_claim", "to": "disclosure-selection" }, { "from": "disclosure-selection", "kind": "related", "to": "transformation-recoverability" }, { "from": "changing-the-game", "kind": "contains_claim", "to": "transformation-recoverability" }, { "from": "transformation-recoverability", "kind": "related", "to": "two-implementations" }, { "from": "changing-the-game", "kind": "contains_claim", "to": "two-implementations" }, { "from": "adoption-region", "kind": "related", "to": "two-implementations" }, { "from": "changing-the-game", "kind": "contains_claim", "to": "adoption-region" }, { "from": "adoption-region", "kind": "related", "to": "fiscal-boundary" }, { "from": "fiscal-capture", "kind": "contains_claim", "to": "fiscal-boundary" }, { "from": "conditional-remittance", "kind": "related", "to": "fiscal-boundary" }, { "from": "fiscal-boundary", "kind": "related", "to": "marginal-decoupling" }, { "from": "asset-account-identity", "kind": "related", "to": "fiscal-boundary" }, { "from": "fiscal-capture", "kind": "contains_claim", "to": "conditional-remittance" }, { "from": "conditional-remittance", "kind": "related", "to": "marginal-decoupling" }, { "from": "fiscal-capture", "kind": "contains_claim", "to": "marginal-decoupling" }, { "from": "asset-account-identity", "kind": "related", "to": "marginal-decoupling" }, { "from": "fiscal-capture", "kind": "contains_claim", "to": "asset-account-identity" }, { "from": "taxonomy-layer", "kind": "contains_claim", "to": "outcome-taxonomy" }, { "from": "classification-rule", "kind": "related", "to": "outcome-taxonomy" }, { "from": "taxonomy-layer", "kind": "contains_claim", "to": "classification-rule" }, { "from": "classification-rule", "kind": "related", "to": "ratchet-threshold" }, { "from": "boilerplate-collapse", "kind": "contains_claim", "to": "record-collapse" }, { "from": "anchored-record-boundary", "kind": "related", "to": "record-collapse" }, { "from": "fiber-characterization", "kind": "related", "to": "record-collapse" }, { "from": "boilerplate-collapse", "kind": "contains_claim", "to": "anchored-record-boundary" }, { "from": "anchored-record-boundary", "kind": "related", "to": "classification-rule" }, { "from": "disclosure-futility", "kind": "contains_claim", "to": "disclosure-futility-claim" }, { "from": "disclosure-futility-claim", "kind": "related", "to": "double-futility-composition" }, { "from": "disclosure-futility-claim", "kind": "related", "to": "record-collapse" }, { "from": "disclosure-futility-claim", "kind": "related", "to": "disclosure-selection" }, { "from": "declared-input-blindness", "kind": "related", "to": "disclosure-futility-claim" }, { "from": "disclosure-futility", "kind": "contains_claim", "to": "double-futility-composition" }, { "from": "double-futility-composition", "kind": "related", "to": "record-collapse" }, { "from": "anchored-record-boundary", "kind": "related", "to": "double-futility-composition" }, { "from": "general-ratchet-impossibility", "kind": "contains_claim", "to": "ratchet-threshold" }, { "from": "mst-public-v1.3.2", "kind": "parallel_audit_branch", "to": "mst-audit-v1.9" }, { "from": "pricing-public-v2.4", "kind": "parallel_audit_branch", "to": "pricing-audit-v2.7" }, { "from": "changing-public-v1.4", "kind": "parallel_audit_branch", "to": "game-audit-v1.7" }, { "from": "fiscal-public-v1.5", "kind": "parallel_audit_branch", "to": "fiscal-audit-v1.8" }, { "from": "fiscal-audit-v1.8", "kind": "unscored_companion", "to": "fiscal-universality-audit-v1.4" } ], "nodes": [ { "id": "missing-system-theorem", "kind": "family", "label": "MST", "state": "public" }, { "id": "mst-public-v1.3.2", "kind": "version", "label": "MST v1.3.2", "state": "public" }, { "id": "mst-audit-v1.9", "kind": "version", "label": "MST v1.9", "state": "held" }, { "id": "missing-system-pricing-law", "kind": "family", "label": "Pricing Law", "state": "public" }, { "id": "pricing-public-v2.4", "kind": "version", "label": "Pricing Law v2.4", "state": "public" }, { "id": "pricing-audit-v2.7", "kind": "version", "label": "Pricing Law v2.7", "state": "held" }, { "id": "changing-the-game", "kind": "family", "label": "Game Change", "state": "public" }, { "id": "changing-public-v1.4", "kind": "version", "label": "Game Change v1.4", "state": "public" }, { "id": "game-audit-v1.7", "kind": "version", "label": "Game Change v1.7", "state": "held" }, { "id": "fiscal-capture", "kind": "family", "label": "Fiscal Capture", "state": "public" }, { "id": "fiscal-public-v1.5", "kind": "version", "label": "Fiscal Capture v1.5", "state": "public" }, { "id": "fiscal-audit-v1.8", "kind": "version", "label": "Fiscal Capture v1.8", "state": "held" }, { "id": "fiscal-universality-audit-v1.4", "kind": "version", "label": "Fiscal Capture v1.4", "state": "held" }, { "id": "taxonomy-layer", "kind": "family", "label": "Taxonomy", "state": "held" }, { "id": "taxonomy-audit-v1.6", "kind": "version", "label": "Taxonomy v1.6", "state": "held" }, { "id": "boilerplate-collapse", "kind": "family", "label": "Boilerplate", "state": "held" }, { "id": "boilerplate-audit-v1.9", "kind": "version", "label": "Boilerplate v1.9", "state": "held" }, { "id": "disclosure-futility", "kind": "family", "label": "Disclosure Futility", "state": "held" }, { "id": "disclosure-audit-v1.0", "kind": "version", "label": "Disclosure Futility v1.0", "state": "held" }, { "id": "general-ratchet-impossibility", "kind": "family", "label": "GRIT", "state": "held" }, { "id": "grit-audit-v1.7", "kind": "version", "label": "GRIT v1.7", "state": "held" }, { "id": "fiber-characterization", "kind": "claim", "label": "Proposition 4.1 · Fiber characterization", "state": "public" }, { "id": "w-independence", "kind": "claim", "label": "Corollary 4.3 · W-Independence", "state": "public" }, { "id": "path-theorem", "kind": "claim", "label": "Theorem 6.1 · Continuous path result", "state": "public" }, { "id": "declared-input-blindness", "kind": "claim", "label": "Corollary 6.8 · Declared-input blindness", "state": "public" }, { "id": "finite-path-theorem", "kind": "claim", "label": "Theorem 7.1 · Finite path result", "state": "public" }, { "id": "price-input-variation", "kind": "claim", "label": "Proposition 1 · Input variation", "state": "public" }, { "id": "target-recovery", "kind": "claim", "label": "Proposition 2 and Corollary 3 · Target and decision recovery", "state": "public" }, { "id": "disclosure-selection", "kind": "claim", "label": "Proposition 4 · Payoff-orthogonal disclosure", "state": "public" }, { "id": "transformation-recoverability", "kind": "claim", "label": "Proposition 1 · Criterion recoverability under transformation", "state": "public" }, { "id": "two-implementations", "kind": "claim", "label": "Proposition 2 · Two implementations", "state": "public" }, { "id": "adoption-region", "kind": "claim", "label": "Proposition 3 · Adoption and instrument choice", "state": "public" }, { "id": "fiscal-boundary", "kind": "claim", "label": "Proposition 1 · Fiscal-rule boundary", "state": "public" }, { "id": "conditional-remittance", "kind": "claim", "label": "Proposition 2 · Conditional remittance effect", "state": "public" }, { "id": "marginal-decoupling", "kind": "claim", "label": "Proposition 3 · Government-wide marginal decoupling", "state": "public" }, { "id": "asset-account-identity", "kind": "claim", "label": "Proposition 4 · Contemporaneous asset-account identity", "state": "public" }, { "id": "outcome-taxonomy", "kind": "claim", "label": "Eight-cell outcome taxonomy", "state": "held" }, { "id": "classification-rule", "kind": "claim", "label": "Impossibility–intractability classifier", "state": "held" }, { "id": "record-collapse", "kind": "claim", "label": "Record-channel collapse", "state": "held" }, { "id": "anchored-record-boundary", "kind": "claim", "label": "Anchored-record boundary", "state": "held" }, { "id": "disclosure-futility-claim", "kind": "claim", "label": "Theorem 1 · Disclosure Futility (held)", "state": "held" }, { "id": "double-futility-composition", "kind": "claim", "label": "Theorem 2 · Double Futility composition (held)", "state": "held" }, { "id": "ratchet-threshold", "kind": "claim", "label": "Theorem 5.1 · Ratchet threshold", "state": "held" } ] }, "schemaVersion": "theorem-laboratory/2", "snapshot": { "deploymentAuthorized": false, "frozenAt": "2026-07-29T08:38:00Z", "id": "c678390eeb6e5a84cccdd37a2cbb9673555456af62ae889567da16a16898d744", "releasePosture": "internal_candidate", "sourceManifestHash": "ff5f6a1d2d36b254ef5dc591e48bddfe5f9cbd689b99858acd7642dbff0ecc1b" }, "summary": { "claims": 22, "corpusEntries": 4444, "families": 8, "heldArtifacts": 9, "provisionalCorpusEntries": 4289, "publicWorkingPapers": 4, "quarantinedDomains": 61, "reconciledCorpusEntries": 155, "reviewArtifacts": 0, "verifiedTheorems": 0, "versions": 13 } }