Browse by subject:
Applied and bridge studies study record
Security, crime & defenseThe Proven-Model Requirement: Existence Proofs, Selection Bias, and Falsification in the Intractability Taxonomy
STATUS · Manuscript in progressSSRN · Not yet posted
MECHANISM
Identify the incentive structure and the condition that would falsify the claim.
RULE CHANGE
Read the intervention only after the paper shows how the current payoff space fails to support system welfare.
READER USE
Use the summary to see where private gain creates system exposure, then check the study record.
Contribution — what this adds to the conversation
The proven-model requirement is an existence proof, not a generalization claim. A single working case is logically sufficient to refute an impossibility claim. Selection bias is addressed by documenting the failure denominator and analyzing failure causes. The scale-and-homogeneity confound is managed by requiring large-scale proofs where available and flagging small-scale proofs as feasibility-in-principle.
WHAT'S NEW · The proven-model requirement is an existence proof, not a generalization claim. A single working case is logically sufficient to refute an impossibility claim. Selection bias is addressed by documenting the failure denominator and analyzing failure causes. The scale-and-homogeneity confound is managed by requiring large-scale proofs where available and flagging small-scale proofs as feasibility-in-principle.
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.