# NEEC Step 1c: Material Security Retrofit (C1.2 → C1.2a/C1.2b, C1.5 narrowed)

**Step 1c retrofit deliverable — Session 8; its retrofitted scores have been
canonical since Session 8.** Retrofits all 13 systems previously scored
under NEEC's legacy 25-criterion structure (Report Systems 1–12; Integral,
Paper Appendix E) to the v2, 26-criterion structure specified in full in
Paper Section 12.3 and anchored in Appendix H.7v2. This is the "dedicated
future pass" Section 12.5 explicitly deferred: *"a full re-review of each
system's existing evidence against the new criterion boundaries... checking,
system by system, whether the evidence that supported the old C1.2 score
speaks to C1.2a, C1.2b, or both, and separately re-checking whether
narrowing C1.5 changes any of its 13 published scores."*

**Method, stated plainly.** Per Section 12.5, this is a *re-review of
already-published evidence*, not new research. Every score below is derived
from that system's own already-published C1.2 and C1.5 rationale text
(Report Part I; Paper Appendix E for Integral), cross-checked in every case
against C4.4 (Power Distribution) wherever C4.4 discusses wealth Gini or
concentration specifically — a source of relevant evidence Appendix H.7v2's
own C1.2b anchors already draw on but which the legacy C1.2/C1.5 write-ups
did not always cite directly. No system's C1.1, C1.3, C1.4, or any Domain
2–5 criterion is touched; this is confirmed programmatically below (see
Verification, Check 2).

**Confidence tags**, matching this project's established disclosure norms
(cf. Georgism's C4.3, Mutual Credit/LETS's C4.3 and C5.2):
- **anchored** — directly matches an existing Appendix H.7v2 worked anchor
  (several of H.7v2's own examples were written using these exact 13
  systems, so several scores below simply apply an anchor already stated
  in the Paper verbatim to the system it was illustrating)
- **direct** — follows straightforwardly from already-published rationale
  text, no anchor needed
- **inferential** — a defensible reading that goes somewhat beyond directly
  quoted figures (most often: no specific $ or % figure exists in the
  legacy text, so the score rests on general knowledge of the named
  mechanism's real-world character)
- **contestable** — a genuinely close call, flagged explicitly for
  independent disagreement

Two calls are flagged **contestable and consequential** and get their own
subsections in Part 2 below, because they are the only two calls in this
entire retrofit where a different reasonable judgment would change a
system's *adequacy tier* or *dominance-relevant profile*.

---

## Part 1: System-by-system retrofit

Each entry gives: the legacy C1.2/C1.5 text this retrofit works from, the
three new/revised scores with rationale, and the resulting Domain 1 change.
Systems are given in Report order (1–12), followed by Integral (Paper
Appendix E; Report System 13 since Report v1.6).

---

### 1. Status Quo Market Capitalism

**Legacy text.** C1.2 (0.5): *"The bottom 50% hold only ~$3,200 median
wealth despite decades of economic growth. While wealth accumulation
mechanisms exist (homeownership, retirement accounts), access concentrates
among those already wealthy, failing universal access requirement."* C1.5
(0.5): *"Only 60% have any wealth accumulation pathway; Gini coefficient
0.85 indicates extreme inequality."*

**C1.2a — 0.5 (Partial)** · *direct*. Homeownership and retirement accounts
are real, functioning accumulation vehicles — the legacy text doesn't
dispute the mechanism itself works, only that it "concentrates among those
already wealthy." But the same text's own bottom-50%-median figure
($3,200) is dramatically below the $60k+/20yr threshold, and nothing in
the corpus suggests 70%+ of participants clear it. A real, standard-market
mechanism reaching a meaningful but sub-threshold share.

**C1.2b — 0.0 (Structural Failure)** · *anchored*. Gini 0.85 is Appendix
H.7v2's own explicit 0.0 anchor case for this exact criterion — no
structural prevention mechanism exists beyond ordinary (and, per this
system's own C4.4, largely ineffective) progressive taxation.

**C1.5′ — 0.5 (Partial)** · *direct*. 60% access-breadth figure carried
forward unchanged; below the ≥80% threshold but a real, non-trivial share.

**Domain 1: 2.0/5 → 2.0/6.** No change in the raw sum (0.5 split into
0.5+0.0 preserves the total; C1.5 unchanged). **Total: 10.5/25 (42%) →
10.5/26 (40%).** **Failures: 8 → 9** (C1.2b joins C1.4 as Domain 1's
second zero). **Tier: unchanged** (Structurally Inadequate, still ≥6).

---

### 2. Nordic Social Democracy

**Legacy text.** C1.2 (0.5): *"Strong middle class with broader wealth
distribution (Gini ~0.65-0.75) than pure capitalism, but still falls short
of universal wealth-building access."* C1.5 (1.0): *"Approximately 70% have
wealth accumulation pathways through homeownership programs, pension
systems, and savings incentives. While not universal, it meets the
threshold for broad-based access."*

**C1.2a — 1.0 (Pass)** · *inferential*. The named mechanisms — multi-decade
pension systems, homeownership programs, savings incentives — are robust
institutional vehicles; the legacy 0.5's actual stated concern ("falls
short of universal... access") is about *breadth/distribution*, which is
now C1.5′/C1.2b's job, not about whether the mechanism is adequate for
those who engage it. This is flagged as more inferential than the
Market Socialism/CCO-PTF 1.0 cases below: no specific $ figure appears in
the existing text, so this reads real institutional strength into a 1.0
rather than citing a number. A more conservative reasoner might keep this
at 0.5; noted for independent re-check.

**C1.2b — 0.5 (Partial)** · *direct*. Wealth Gini 0.65–0.75 (the legacy
C1.2 figure, and the exact figure Appendix H.7v2 already discusses at
length for this system) is a meaningful reduction from unregulated
capitalism's 0.85 via genuine redistributive policy, but well above the
<0.35 threshold — matches H.7v2's own 0.5-band description almost exactly
("real, meaningful reduction... without a structural mechanism confirmed to
hold it below the threshold").

**C1.5′ — 1.0 (Pass)** · *anchored*. Appendix H.7v2 already works this
exact case: *"the same qualitative-tolerance judgment call already
documented in H.7's own C1.5 entry above carries over unchanged, since it
was never about the Gini clause."*

**Domain 1: 4.0/5 → 5.0/6.** **Total: 18.5/25 (74%) → 19.5/26 (75%).**
**Failures: 2 → 2** (no new zeros in Domain 1). **Tier: unchanged**
(Potentially Adequate).

---

### 3. Centrally Planned Socialism

**Legacy text.** C1.2 (0.0): *"System ideologically opposed to personal
wealth accumulation... No mechanisms for individual wealth building beyond
minimal personal property."* C1.5 (0.5): *"State ownership means
'universal' access in theory, but no personal wealth accumulation."*

**C1.2a — 0.0 (Structural Failure)** · *direct*. "No mechanisms... beyond
minimal personal property" is an explicit absence, with no named collective
institution (contrast Degrowth's CLTs/cooperatives or Participatory
Economics' investment councils, below) — the dismissive "beyond" clause
rules out even the personal-property exception as insufficient.

**C1.2b — 0.5 (Partial)** · *contestable*. **See Part 2 below** for full
discussion — this was revised down from an initial 1.0 read.

**C1.5′ — 0.0 (Structural Failure)** · *direct*. Follows C1.2a=0.0: no
individual accumulation mechanism exists to have access to.

**Domain 1: 3.0/5 → 3.0/6.** **Total: 10.0/25 (40%) → 10.0/26 (38%).**
**Failures: 11 → 12.** **Tier: unchanged** (Structurally Inadequate).

---

### 4. Market Socialism

**Legacy text.** C1.2 (1.0): *"Cooperative membership provides ownership
stake and wealth accumulation. Mondragon members accumulate substantial
wealth through capital accounts and profit distribution."* C1.5 (0.5):
*"Members have wealth access, but require cooperative membership...
Not truly universal."*

This system's retrofit was already previewed in Appendix H.8a as a worked
example checking the anchors' own usability — reproduced here as the
formal score.

**C1.2a — 1.0 (Pass)** · *anchored*. Appendix H.8a: *"Cooperative membership
provides ownership stake and wealth accumulation... members accumulate
substantial wealth through capital accounts — evidence speaks almost
entirely to the buffer-building question."*

**C1.2b — 0.5 (Partial)** · *anchored*. Appendix H.8a: *"'cooperative
systems: Gini 0.40-0.50' — real progress attributable to distributed
ownership... not confirmed under 0.35."* Also matches C4.4's own text:
"Wealth Gini in cooperative networks is substantially lower than capitalist
firms" (not quantified under threshold).

**C1.5′ — 0.5 (Partial)** · *direct*. Legacy text is pure access-breadth
reasoning already (membership-gated) — unchanged by narrowing.

**Domain 1: 3.5/5 → 4.0/6.** **Total: 16.0/25 (64%) → 16.5/26 (63%).**
**Failures: 2 → 2.** **Tier: unchanged** (Potentially Adequate).

---

### 5. Libertarian Minarchism

**Legacy text.** C1.2 (0.0): *"Those born poor cannot accumulate initial
capital. Wealth concentration increases over generations through
inheritance."* C1.5 (0.0): *"Wealth concentration accelerates without
redistributive mechanisms... Only those born with capital have genuine
wealth-building access."*

**C1.2a — 0.0** · *direct*. No baseline mechanism for those without
starting capital, stated explicitly.

**C1.2b — 0.0** · *direct*. "Concentration accelerates" is the literal
opposite of prevention.

**C1.5′ — 0.0** · *direct*. "Only those born with capital" is the
narrowest access case in the corpus.

**Domain 1: 0.0/5 → 0.0/6** (all zero either way). **Total: 8.0/25 (32%) →
8.0/26 (31%).** **Failures: 14 → 15** (Domain 1 goes from 5 of 5 zero to 6
of 6 zero). **Tier: unchanged** (Structurally Inadequate — already the
corpus's most-failed system).

---

### 6. Modern Monetary Theory + Job Guarantee

**Legacy text.** C1.2 (0.5): *"Guaranteed employment provides income
stability enabling savings. However, there are no specific wealth-building
mechanisms beyond traditional markets."* C1.5 (1.0): *"Universal employment
provides universal income access, enabling wealth building through
traditional mechanisms."*

**C1.2a — 0.5 (Partial)** · *direct*. "No specific... mechanisms beyond
traditional markets" — the accumulation vehicle is the same one Status Quo
Capitalism has (homeownership, retirement accounts); guaranteed income
improves the *capacity* to use it but doesn't add a new mechanism. Scored
identically to Status Quo's own C1.2a for the same underlying reason.

**C1.2b — 0.0 (Structural Failure)** · *contestable*. **See Part 2 below**
— this is the single most consequential call in this retrofit.

**C1.5′ — 0.5 (Partial)** · *inferential*. The legacy 1.0 conflated
*universal employment/income access* with *universal wealth-building-
mechanism access* — but per C1.2a above, the underlying accumulation
mechanism is the same traditional-market one that only reaches ~60% of
participants under Status Quo Capitalism's own C1.5′. Guaranteed income
should improve that reach beyond 60%, but the narrowed criterion asks
specifically about mechanism access, not income access — scored more
conservatively than the legacy blend to reflect that distinction.

**Domain 1: 4.0/5 → 3.5/6.** **Total: 16.0/25 (64%) → 15.5/26 (60%).**
**Failures: 2 → 3 — TIER CHANGE: Potentially Adequate → Partially
Adequate.** See Part 2.

---

### 7. Universal Basic Income

**Legacy text.** C1.2 (0.0): *"Provides income but no wealth-building
mechanisms... maintains wealth-excluded underclass despite income
provision."* C1.5 (0.0): *"Income is not wealth. UBI provides monthly
survival but no ownership stakes, no asset accumulation."*

This is the system whose legacy C1.2/C1.5 pairing is the canonical
precedent Georgism's and Mutual Credit/LETS's own C1.2a/C1.5 sections
already invoke repeatedly ("NEEC's own existing UBI evaluation establishes
the relevant precedent directly").

**C1.2a — 0.0** · *anchored*. The canonical case.

**C1.2b — 0.0** · *direct*. C4.4's own already-published rationale states
this almost verbatim for C1.2b's own question: *"Provides income but not
economic power. Ownership, wealth, capital remain concentrated. UBI
recipients remain subordinate to capital owners despite income
provision."* No mechanism targets wealth concentration (a UBI funded by a
wealth tax specifically would score differently; this evaluation, like the
original, scores UBI as generically proposed/funded).

**C1.5′ — 0.0** · *anchored*. Follows C1.2a=0.0, matching this system's own
role as the anchor case throughout the project.

**Domain 1: 2.5/5 → 2.5/6** (no change in raw sum — C1.2 was already 0.0,
C1.5 was already 0.0). **Total: 14.5/25 (58%) → 14.5/26 (56%).**
**Failures: 6 → 7.** **Tier: unchanged** (Structurally Inadequate).

---

### 8. Degrowth Economics

**Legacy text.** C1.2 (0.5): *"Commons-based wealth (community land
trusts, cooperatives) provides collective security. However, individual
wealth accumulation is ideologically discouraged."* C1.5 (0.5): *"Commons-
based wealth provides universal access to resources... personal wealth
accumulation is limited by design."*

**C1.2a — 0.5 (Partial)** · *anchored*. This is Appendix H.7v2's own
explicit worked anchor, written using this exact system: *"'Commons-based
wealth (community land trusts, cooperatives) provides collective
security... illustrating the 0.5 band well.'"*

**C1.2b — 1.0 (Pass)** · *direct*. C4.4's own already-published rationale
names an explicit structural cap: *"Decentralization, wealth caps,
cooperative ownership, democratic governance."* A named hard cap is exactly
H.7v2's own 1.0-band description ("a hard cap... that don't permit
unlimited individual accumulation").

**C1.5′ — 0.5 (Partial)** · *direct*. Legacy text is access-breadth
reasoning already (universal access to commons resources) — unchanged.

**Domain 1: 3.5/5 → 4.5/6.** **Total: 18.0/25 (72%) → 19.0/26 (73%).**
**Failures: 2 → 2.** **Tier: unchanged** (Potentially Adequate).

---

### 9. Stakeholder Capitalism

**Legacy text.** C1.2 (0.5): *"Stock options and profit-sharing expand
slightly but fundamentally maintain capital-labor divide."* C1.5 (0.5):
*"Slightly broader wealth access... fundamental ownership concentration
persists. The bottom 50% still hold minimal wealth."*

**C1.2a — 0.5 (Partial)** · *direct*. Stock options/profit-sharing are a
real, if explicitly "incremental" and "slight," mechanism — same pattern
as Status Quo's traditional-market mechanisms, marginally expanded.

**C1.2b — 0.0 (Structural Failure)** · *direct*. C4.4's own already-
published rationale: *"One-share-one-vote maintains wealth-based power
concentration... Token stakeholder voice doesn't challenge fundamental
plutocratic control."* No structural cap exists.

**C1.5′ — 0.5 (Partial)** · *direct*. Legacy access-breadth component
("slightly broader... through expanded stock ownership programs") carried
forward.

**Domain 1: 2.0/5 → 2.0/6** (no change in raw sum). **Total: 10.0/25
(40%) → 10.0/26 (38%).** **Failures: 8 → 9.** **Tier: unchanged**
(Structurally Inadequate).

---

### 10. Fully Automated Luxury Communism

**Legacy text.** C1.2 (0.5): *"Abundance makes individual wealth
accumulation less relevant. However, it is unclear if collective abundance
equals personal wealth-building access."* C1.5 (0.5): *"Universal access
to abundant goods and services. However, ownership structures are
unclear."*

**C1.2a — 0.0 (Structural Failure)** · *direct*. No named mechanism of any
kind (contrast Degrowth's CLTs or ParEcon's investment councils, below) —
"abundance makes accumulation less relevant" describes a paradigm that
doesn't specify a household-buffer vehicle at all, closer to the
Integral/UBI pattern than to Degrowth's "some collective institution"
pattern.

**C1.2b — 0.0 (Structural Failure)** · *direct*. This score was revised
during this retrofit's own verification pass: an initial reading credited
0.5 on the theoretical grounds that post-scarcity abundance reduces the
scarcity dynamics that drive concentration. Cross-checking against this
system's own already-published C4.4 rationale overturned that read: *"Who
owns/controls the machines is a central question left unresolved. Risk of
technocratic elite (engineers, AI specialists) concentrating power."* The
published evidence is explicitly about *unresolved risk*, not structural
prevention — scored to match the existing finding rather than override it
with a new theoretical argument the corpus itself doesn't support.

**C1.5′ — 0.0 (Structural Failure)** · *direct*. Follows C1.2a=0.0:
"universal access to abundant goods and services" is consumption access,
not access to an asset-growth mechanism.

**Domain 1: 4.0/5 → 3.0/6.** **Total: 14.0/25 (56%) → 13.0/26 (50%).**
**Failures: 7 → 10** (all three new/revised Domain 1 criteria are zero).
**Tier: unchanged** (Structurally Inadequate — already deeply so both
before and after).

---

### 11. Participatory Economics

**Legacy text.** C1.2 (0.5): *"No private capital accumulation by design.
However, participatory planning could enable collective wealth-building
through community investment councils."* C1.5 (0.5): *"Participatory
councils provide universal economic input but not wealth accumulation in
the traditional sense."*

**C1.2a — 0.5 (Partial)** · *anchored*. "Community investment councils"
that "could enable collective wealth-building" is a named, if vague,
collectively-held mechanism — matching Appendix H.7v2's own stated
distinguishing logic for its 0.5 band ("collectively-rather-than-
individually held" mechanisms), the same logic underlying Degrowth's
anchor case above, not the 0.0 band's "no mechanism of any kind" case. An
earlier pass in this analysis initially scored this 0.0 by analogy to
Centrally Planned Socialism's flat absence; reconsidered and revised to
0.5 on the grounds that "no mechanisms... beyond X" (Centrally Planned
Socialism's phrasing, dismissing X) is meaningfully different from "could
enable collective wealth-building through [named institution]"
(Participatory Economics' phrasing, crediting the institution) — the
retrofit follows the anchor's own stated logic rather than an analogy to a
differently-worded case.

**C1.2b — 1.0 (Pass)** · *anchored*. C4.4's own already-published
rationale is about as clean a 1.0 anchor as exists: *"No concentrated
wealth, no capital owners, no managerial hierarchy."* Comprehensive
elimination of private capital ownership, at least as strong a case as
Centrally Planned Socialism's (and without that system's own nomenklatura
complication — see Part 2).

**C1.5′ — 0.5 (Partial)** · *direct*. Legacy text: "Participatory councils
provide UNIVERSAL economic input" — access to the (moderate-efficacy, per
C1.2a) collective mechanism is explicitly universal by design (all
participants are council members). Scored 0.5, not 1.0, to avoid double-
counting universal access when C1.2a's own finding is that the underlying
mechanism's asset-growth power is only partial, not full.

**Domain 1: 4.0/5 → 5.0/6.** **Total: 19.5/25 (78%) → 20.5/26 (79%).**
**Failures: 1 → 1** (no new zeros — the revision above from an initial 0.0
read to 0.5 is what keeps this system out of a tier change; see Part 2's
discussion of why this was double-checked so carefully). **Tier:
unchanged** (Potentially Adequate).

---

### 12. CCO-PTF-CIP-SZH

**Legacy text.** C1.2 (1.0): *"PTF 'acre equity'... The median household
accumulates $70,000+ over 20 years through acre equity appreciation plus
CCO surplus savings."* C1.5 (0.5): *"PTF acre equity provides universal
wealth access (projected 80%+ participation)... depends on implementation
completeness."*

**C1.2a — 1.0 (Pass)** · *anchored*. The legacy text states NEEC's own
C1.2a threshold figure verbatim — "$70,000+ over 20 years" is not an
estimate this retrofit is making, it is the system's own already-published
claim, and it is exactly the number the criterion asks for. The single
cleanest 1.0 in the corpus.

**C1.2b — 1.0 (Pass)** · *direct*. C4.4's own already-published rationale
states the C1.2b threshold figure directly: *"Wealth Gini projected
<0.35."*

**C1.5′ — 0.5 (Partial)** · *direct*. Legacy hedge carried forward
unchanged ("projected... depends on implementation completeness... not
absolute") — consistent with this system's own general Critical Assessment
caveat elsewhere in its write-up about modeling vs. real-world validation.

**Domain 1: 4.5/5 → 5.5/6.** **Total: 23.5/25 (94%) → 24.5/26 (94%).**
**Failures: 0 → 0.** **Tier: unchanged** (Potentially Adequate — the
corpus's strongest system both before and after, essentially unaffected in
percentage terms).

---

### 13. Integral (Paper Appendix E — Report System 13 since Report v1.6)

**Legacy text.** C1.2 (0.0): *"ITC credits...cannot be traded, saved,
speculated on, accumulated, or converted into influence. When you use them
to access something, they disappear—just like an energy cycle, not a
currency."* C1.5 (0.0): "Same fundamental issue as C1.2."

This is the system whose own case *motivated* the entire C1.2a/C1.2b split
(Paper Section 12.1) — its retrofit is correspondingly the cleanest, and
both scores already appear as Appendix H.7v2's own worked anchors.

**C1.2a — 0.0** · *anchored*. H.7v2's own citation: dissolving credits
"cannot function as anyone's buffer."

**C1.2b — 1.0 (Pass)** · *anchored*. H.7v2's own citation, "close to the
strongest possible C1.2b answer in the corpus": ITC "cannot be traded,
saved, speculated on, accumulated, or converted into influence."

**C1.5′ — 0.0** · *anchored*. Follows C1.2a=0.0.

**Domain 1: 2.0/5 → 3.0/6.** **Total: 18.5/25 (74%) → 19.5/26 (75%).**
**Failures: 3 → 3** (C1.2 splits into a 0.0 and a 1.0; the 1.0 doesn't add
a failure, so Domain 1 keeps exactly the two zeros it had before — C1.2a
and C1.5′ — and the total failure count is unchanged, still 3, still
including C5.2). **Tier: unchanged** (Partially Adequate). **This is the
retrofit's cleanest validation of Section 12.1's own theoretical
motivation** — see Part 3.

---

## Part 2: The two contestable, consequential calls

Every other score above is disclosed with a confidence tag but landed on a
single considered judgment. These two get fuller treatment because each is
the deciding factor for something structurally significant — one for a
system's adequacy *tier*, the other for the internal consistency of a
finding this retrofit would otherwise report as settled.

### 2.1 MMT + Job Guarantee's C1.2b — the only tier-crossing call in this retrofit

**The stakes.** If C1.2b = 0.0, MMT+JG has 3 Domain 1 zeros where it
previously had 0, moving it from 2 failures (Potentially Adequate) to 3
(Partially Adequate) — the *only* tier change this entire 13-system
retrofit produces. If C1.2b = 0.5 instead, MMT+JG stays at 2 failures and
remains Potentially Adequate.

**The case for 0.0 (this evaluation's call).** Nothing in MMT+JG's design
targets wealth *concentration* specifically — no wealth tax, no asset cap,
no land-value capture, no abolition of private capital. The job guarantee
is an *income* and *employment* mechanism; it doesn't touch existing
accumulated wealth stocks or the rate at which capital owners' holdings
grow. This matches the same "no structural mechanism = 0.0" pattern this
retrofit applies to Status Quo Capitalism, UBI, and Stakeholder Capitalism
— MMT+JG's C1.2a is scored identically to Status Quo's for the same
underlying reason (same traditional-market mechanism), and the parallel
extends naturally to C1.2b.

**The case for 0.5 (the counter-consideration).** This system's own C4.4
scores 0.5, not 0.0, citing: *"Reduces capital power by providing an exit
option from private exploitation."* A reviewer could read "reduces capital
power" as sufficient evidence of *some* structural effect on wealth
concentration, clearing the bar for C1.2b's 0.5 band ("real, meaningful
reduction... without a structural mechanism confirmed to hold it below the
threshold").

**Why this evaluation doesn't adopt that reading.** C4.4's "reduces capital
power" is explicitly about *bargaining and political power* — the exit
option strengthens workers' negotiating position and the guarantee itself
expands the state's economic role — not about a policy instrument that
targets the *Gini coefficient of wealth* the way Degrowth's caps, the
various private-capital-abolition systems, or Georgism's land tax do. An
improved bargaining position could, over time and indirectly, produce
somewhat better wage outcomes (already captured in C1.1/C2.1), but that is
a different causal channel than C1.2b's own threshold, which is about
structural prevention of *asset* concentration specifically.

**Disclosure.** This is presented as the single most consequential close
call in this retrofit, not a settled fact. A future scorer who finds the
C4.4-documented capital-power reduction sufficient for C1.2b's threshold
should feel free to override this call to 0.5 — doing so removes MMT+JG's
only tier change and nothing else in this retrofit depends on this
specific number.

### 2.2 Centrally Planned Socialism's C1.2b — the nomenklatura tension

**The case for 1.0.** Abolition of private capital markets should produce
an extremely low *measured* monetary wealth Gini — there was no large-
scale financial-asset ownership to concentrate. This was this retrofit's
initial read.

**Why it was revised to 0.5.** This system's own already-published C4.4
rationale is explicit: *"Extreme power concentration in party apparatus and
planning bureaucracy. Attempted to eliminate the capitalist class but
created a new elite (nomenklatura) with concentrated economic and
political power."* "Concentrated *economic* power" — not just political
power — is the system's own already-published finding, describing real,
well-documented privilege (housing, special stores, foreign travel) that a
narrow, formal wealth-Gini reading would miss entirely, since none of it
passed through priced markets. A clean 1.0 would let the *absence of legal
private property* stand in for genuine concentration-prevention, when the
system's own C4.4 already establishes that concentration re-emerged
through a different channel.

**Why 0.5, not 0.0.** The *formal* wealth Gini genuinely was very
compressed — there is no comparably-documented case of individual
financial fortunes accumulating the way Status Quo Capitalism's or even
Nordic Social Democracy's did. 0.5 tries to hold both facts at once:
extremely compressed *formal* distribution, but real, already-documented
*de facto* concentration through a non-monetary channel.

**Disclosure.** Unlike the MMT+JG call above, this one does not change
any tier (Centrally Planned Socialism is at 12 failures either way, deep
in Structurally Inadequate territory) — it is flagged for the sake of
getting the number right and modeling the disclosure norm, not because the
stakes are as high.

---

## Part 3: What this retrofit confirms about the framework itself

**Integral's own case, now quantified.** Section 12.1 motivated this split
by observing that Integral's ITC design "is arguably close to the
strongest possible answer to (b), and the same design choice is what
produces its failure on (a)." The retrofit turns this from a qualitative
claim into an arithmetic one: Integral's Domain 1 goes from a weak
2.0/5 (40%) under the legacy conflated criterion to a much stronger
3.0/6 (50%) once C1.2b's genuine strength (1.0) is no longer averaged
together with C1.2a's genuine weakness (0.0). The split does exactly the
analytical work it was designed to do.

**Nordic Social Democracy and Integral land at an exact tie — twice.**
Under the legacy structure, these two systems were already tied at
18.5/25 (74%), a tie Appendix A.4 discusses at length as illustrating the
adequacy/feasibility tension (Section 12.4). Under the retrofit, they are
tied *again* — this time at 19.5/26 (75%) — even though each system's
underlying Domain 1 arithmetic moved independently (Nordic: 4.0→5.0;
Integral: 2.0→3.0) to produce the same relative outcome. Their tiers still
differ (Nordic: 2 failures, Potentially Adequate; Integral: 3 failures,
Partially Adequate, unchanged by the retrofit) — the tie persists at the
percentage level while the tier-defining failure counts stay exactly where
they were, which is a clean illustration that percentage and failure-count
are measuring different things by design (Paper Section 10.3), now with a
second independent data point.

**A genuine three-way tier/percentage crossover, for the first time.**
Prior to this session, the tier-vs-percentage tension had one clean
illustration (Georgism: 52%, Potentially Adequate — the *lowest* percentage
in that tier) and one separate illustration one session later (Mutual
Credit/LETS: 56%, Partially Adequate — a *higher* percentage than Georgism,
in a *worse* tier). This retrofit adds a third data point in the same
comparative space: **MMT + Job Guarantee, 60%, Partially Adequate** — a
higher percentage than both Georgism and Mutual Credit/LETS, still in the
worse tier relative to Georgism. Laid out together:

| System | Percentage | Failures | Tier |
|---|---|---|---|
| Georgism / Land Value Tax | 52% | 2 | **Potentially Adequate** |
| Mutual Credit / LETS | 56% | 3 | Partially Adequate |
| MMT + Job Guarantee | 60% | 3 | Partially Adequate |
| Integral | 75% | 3 | Partially Adequate |

Georgism has the *lowest* percentage of the four but the *best* tier — the
cleanest concentrated illustration yet of Section 8.3's failure-count
classification diverging from Section 10.3's own point about why NEEC treats
scalar rank as its least important comparative tool. **Precisely stated: in
Session 8 the Partially Adequate tier had three members** (Mutual
Credit/LETS, MMT+JG, Integral, spanning 56–75%), **with Georgism sitting
just below them in percentage while remaining in the better, Potentially
Adequate tier** — it is this adjacency, not co-membership, that makes the
four-system table above an instructive unit. On the canonical corpus the
tier has eight members — MMT + Job Guarantee, Integral, Mutual Credit /
LETS, Universal Basic Services, Sovereign Wealth Fund Statism, State
Capitalism / Singapore, Islamic finance and Ostrom-style commons governance
— spanning 52% to 75%: a meaningfully richer basis than the single-member
tier that existed before Session 8 (Integral alone) — flagged again for the
"Partially Adequate tier formalization" task already queued in the project
roadmap, now with enough real data to actually do that work.

**A second, independent percentage/tier tie worth flagging.** Universal
Basic Income and Mutual Credit/LETS land at an *exact* percentage tie (both
14.5/26, 56%) on opposite sides of the Structurally-Inadequate/
Partially-Adequate boundary (7 failures vs. 3 respectively) — arguably a
sharper illustration than the four-system table above, since it is an exact
tie rather than mere proximity. See Verification, below, for where the
ranking is printed.

**Dominance relations: a validation, not a new finding.** Running the
pairwise dominance check under the retrofitted structure (in Session 8, on
the 15-system corpus) shows CCO-PTF-CIP-SZH failing to *strictly* dominate
several systems the Paper's own Section 11.3 already discusses only under
its "Weak Dominance" or "Non-Dominated" headings (Nordic, Degrowth,
Participatory Economics, Integral) — this is not a retrofit artifact. The
same non-strict-dominance pattern against four *other* systems (Centrally
Planned Socialism, UBI, Libertarian Minarchism, FALC) was independently
confirmed this session to already hold under the *original* 25-criterion
structure too, via a single criterion (C4.5, Exploitation Elimination, where
CCO-PTF scores 0.5) that Step 1c never touches. The retrofit changes *which*
criterion produces non-strict-dominance for some pairs but does not
introduce non-dominance where strict dominance previously existed and now
doesn't — this was checked programmatically (see Verification, Check 4)
specifically to rule out an accidental Step 1c side-effect before including
this observation. On the canonical 23-system corpus, CCO-PTF-CIP-SZH fails
to strictly dominate eleven entries: the eight named above, Mutual Credit /
LETS, Islamic finance and Ostrom-style commons governance.

---

## Verification

Every figure in Part 1 and Part 3 was produced by, and cross-checked
against, two independent scripts run this session:

1. **`step1c_retrofit.py`** — encodes every score above with its rationale
   inline, builds each system's full 26-criterion vector, and asserts
   `new_total == old_total - old_D1 + new_D1` for every system (a
   transcription-error check in the same spirit as the existing weighting
   script's `verify_transcription()`) before printing anything.
2. **`neec_weighting_robustness_analysis_v2.py`** — a from-scratch rebuild
   of the project's own Appendix A.4 reference script, updated exactly per
   that script's own docstring instructions ("HOW TO RE-RUN THIS AFTER STEP
   1C"). Includes a new `verify_unchanged_from_legacy()` check confirming
   all 21 non-wealth criteria are byte-identical to the pre-retrofit
   `SCORES` dict for all 13 systems (i.e., Step 1c touched *only* C1.2/C1.5
   and nothing else) — **PASSED**. Also incorporates Georgism/LVT and
   Mutual Credit/LETS (already natively on the v2 structure), each
   re-verified against its own scratch document's stated domain totals
   before inclusion, giving a complete 15-system, single-structure corpus
   for the first time.

Both scripts' `verify_transcription()`-equivalent checks passed for all 15
systems on first run after the final round of score revisions (Centrally
Planned Socialism's C1.2b, FALC's C1.2b, and Participatory Economics'
C1.2a were each revised once during drafting, each time by re-deriving
from source rather than patching the arithmetic in place — consistent with
this project's standing "verify, don't assume" discipline).

**Ranking under the retrofitted structure.** `step1c_retrofit.py` prints the
ranking of the 13 retrofitted systems by percentage; its captured output,
`step1c_retrofit_output.txt`, is reproduced byte for byte by the harness
(`run_all_checks.py`) and notes that Georgism (52%) and Mutual Credit/LETS
(56%), already on the v2 structure, merge in by eye. The ranking of all 23
systems of the canonical corpus, under equal weighting and the three
alternative schemes of Appendix A.4, is printed by
`neec_weighting_robustness_analysis_v2.py` and captured in
`session25_v2script_output.txt`.

---

## What this document does NOT do

Consistent with the project's own roadmap distinction (Step 1c vs. "Step 5
expanded," per the Session 7 handoff), this document produces the
retrofitted *scores and rationale* only. It does not:

- Rewrite the Report's Part I system write-ups (in Session 8, Systems 1–12's Domain 1 sections still showed the legacy C1.2/C1.5 text; Report v1.6 carries all 15 of its systems on the 26-criterion structure)
- Rewrite the Report's Part II/III comparative-analysis prose (rankings,
  Pareto frontier, structural-failure-pattern counts, domain-excellence
  tables, most-discriminating-criteria discussion all still describe the
  pre-retrofit 25-criterion corpus)
- Rewrite the Paper's Appendix B summary table or Section 11's dominance/
  ranking discussion
- Add Integral to the Report (still Paper-only, per its existing status)

All of the above is explicitly the "Step 5 (expanded)" regeneration task
already queued in the project roadmap as "High effort, likely
multi-session" — this document, plus the updated
`neec_weighting_robustness_analysis_v2.py` and the retrofitted CSV rows
(both produced this session), are its ready-to-use inputs.

---

## Summary blocks

The machine-readable summaries of the thirteen entries this document
retrofits (protocol section 9; schema `neec-summary-block/1.0`,
`summary_block_schema.json`), one per entry, in the order of the canonical
corpus. They are generated from the canonical corpus and the Session 28
staging (`summary_blocks_s28.json`), not typed, and validated by
`neec_entry.py`.

### Status Quo Market Capitalism

<!-- NEEC-SUMMARY-BLOCK -->
```json
{
  "schema": "neec-summary-block/1.0",
  "key": "Status Quo Market Capitalism",
  "code": "SQ",
  "display_name": "Status Quo Market Capitalism",
  "record": {"documents": ["NEEC_Report_v1_6.md", "NEEC_Step1c_Retrofit_C1_2ab_C1_5.md"], "scored": "NEEC v1 (Report Part I), legacy 25-criterion structure; retrofitted to v2 in Session 8 (Step 1c)", "structure": "retrofit-step1c"},
  "scope": {"class": "configured_national_economy", "basis": "assigned", "source": {"file": "SCORING_PROTOCOL.md", "locator": "3.1", "phrase": "Configured national economy: Status Quo Market Capitalism, Nordic Social Democracy, Centrally Planned Socialism."}},
  "vector": {
    "C1.1": 0.5, "C1.2a": 0.5, "C1.2b": 0.0, "C1.3": 0.5, "C1.4": 0.0, "C1.5": 0.5,
    "C2.1": 0.5, "C2.2": 0.0, "C2.3": 0.5, "C2.4": 0.5, "C2.5": 0.5,
    "C3.1": 0.0, "C3.2": 1.0, "C3.3": 0.0, "C3.4": 0.5, "C3.5": 0.5,
    "C4.1": 0.0, "C4.2": 0.0, "C4.3": 0.5, "C4.4": 0.0, "C4.5": 0.0,
    "C5.1": 1.0, "C5.2": 1.0, "C5.3": 1.0, "C5.4": 0.5, "C5.5": 0.5
  },
  "summary": {"D1": 2.0, "D2": 2.0, "D3": 2.0, "D4": 0.5, "D5": 4.0, "total": 10.5, "failures": 9, "tier": "Structurally Inadequate"},
  "flags": [],
  "joint_readings": [
    {"id": "scored", "label": "as scored", "basis": "scored", "resolve": {}, "result": {"total": 10.5, "failures": 9, "tier": "Structurally Inadequate"}}
  ],
  "scenarios": []
}
```
<!-- /NEEC-SUMMARY-BLOCK -->

### Nordic Social Democracy

<!-- NEEC-SUMMARY-BLOCK -->
```json
{
  "schema": "neec-summary-block/1.0",
  "key": "Nordic Social Democracy",
  "code": "NSD",
  "display_name": "Nordic Social Democracy",
  "record": {"documents": ["NEEC_Report_v1_6.md", "NEEC_Step1c_Retrofit_C1_2ab_C1_5.md"], "scored": "NEEC v1 (Report Part I), legacy 25-criterion structure; retrofitted to v2 in Session 8 (Step 1c)", "structure": "retrofit-step1c"},
  "scope": {"class": "configured_national_economy", "basis": "assigned", "source": {"file": "SCORING_PROTOCOL.md", "locator": "3.1", "phrase": "Configured national economy: Status Quo Market Capitalism, Nordic Social Democracy, Centrally Planned Socialism."}},
  "vector": {
    "C1.1": 1.0, "C1.2a": 1.0, "C1.2b": 0.5, "C1.3": 1.0, "C1.4": 0.5, "C1.5": 1.0,
    "C2.1": 1.0, "C2.2": 0.5, "C2.3": 1.0, "C2.4": 1.0, "C2.5": 0.0,
    "C3.1": 1.0, "C3.2": 1.0, "C3.3": 0.5, "C3.4": 1.0, "C3.5": 0.0,
    "C4.1": 0.5, "C4.2": 0.5, "C4.3": 1.0, "C4.4": 1.0, "C4.5": 0.5,
    "C5.1": 1.0, "C5.2": 1.0, "C5.3": 0.5, "C5.4": 1.0, "C5.5": 0.5
  },
  "summary": {"D1": 5.0, "D2": 3.5, "D3": 3.5, "D4": 3.5, "D5": 4.0, "total": 19.5, "failures": 2, "tier": "Potentially Adequate"},
  "flags": [],
  "joint_readings": [
    {"id": "scored", "label": "as scored", "basis": "scored", "resolve": {}, "result": {"total": 19.5, "failures": 2, "tier": "Potentially Adequate"}}
  ],
  "scenarios": []
}
```
<!-- /NEEC-SUMMARY-BLOCK -->

### Centrally Planned Socialism

<!-- NEEC-SUMMARY-BLOCK -->
```json
{
  "schema": "neec-summary-block/1.0",
  "key": "Centrally Planned Socialism",
  "code": "CPS",
  "display_name": "Centrally Planned Socialism",
  "record": {"documents": ["NEEC_Report_v1_6.md", "NEEC_Step1c_Retrofit_C1_2ab_C1_5.md"], "scored": "NEEC v1 (Report Part I), legacy 25-criterion structure; retrofitted to v2 in Session 8 (Step 1c)", "structure": "retrofit-step1c"},
  "scope": {"class": "configured_national_economy", "basis": "assigned", "source": {"file": "SCORING_PROTOCOL.md", "locator": "3.1", "phrase": "Configured national economy: Status Quo Market Capitalism, Nordic Social Democracy, Centrally Planned Socialism."}},
  "vector": {
    "C1.1": 1.0, "C1.2a": 0.0, "C1.2b": 0.5, "C1.3": 1.0, "C1.4": 0.5, "C1.5": 0.0,
    "C2.1": 0.0, "C2.2": 0.0, "C2.3": 0.0, "C2.4": 0.0, "C2.5": 0.5,
    "C3.1": 0.5, "C3.2": 1.0, "C3.3": 0.0, "C3.4": 0.0, "C3.5": 1.0,
    "C4.1": 0.5, "C4.2": 0.5, "C4.3": 1.0, "C4.4": 0.0, "C4.5": 1.0,
    "C5.1": 0.5, "C5.2": 0.0, "C5.3": 0.0, "C5.4": 0.0, "C5.5": 0.5
  },
  "summary": {"D1": 3.0, "D2": 0.5, "D3": 2.5, "D4": 3.0, "D5": 1.0, "total": 10.0, "failures": 12, "tier": "Structurally Inadequate"},
  "flags": [
    {"criterion": "C1.2b", "scored": 0.5, "alternatives": [1.0], "basis": "stated", "reading": "the formal wealth Gini, with no private capital markets", "tracks": null, "source": {"file": "NEEC_Step1c_Retrofit_C1_2ab_C1_5.md", "locator": "document", "phrase": "The case for 1.0."}}
  ],
  "joint_readings": [
    {"id": "scored", "label": "as scored", "basis": "scored", "resolve": {}, "result": {"total": 10.0, "failures": 12, "tier": "Structurally Inadequate"}},
    {"id": "up", "label": "every flagged call resolved upward", "basis": "extremes", "resolve": {"C1.2b": 1.0}, "result": {"total": 10.5, "failures": 12, "tier": "Structurally Inadequate"}},
    {"id": "down", "label": "every flagged call resolved downward", "basis": "extremes", "resolve": {}, "result": {"total": 10.0, "failures": 12, "tier": "Structurally Inadequate"}}
  ],
  "scenarios": []
}
```
<!-- /NEEC-SUMMARY-BLOCK -->

### Market Socialism

<!-- NEEC-SUMMARY-BLOCK -->
```json
{
  "schema": "neec-summary-block/1.0",
  "key": "Market Socialism",
  "code": "MS",
  "display_name": "Market Socialism",
  "record": {"documents": ["NEEC_Report_v1_6.md", "NEEC_Step1c_Retrofit_C1_2ab_C1_5.md"], "scored": "NEEC v1 (Report Part I), legacy 25-criterion structure; retrofitted to v2 in Session 8 (Step 1c)", "structure": "retrofit-step1c"},
  "scope": {"class": "comprehensive_system", "basis": "assigned", "source": {"file": "SCORING_PROTOCOL.md", "locator": "3.1", "phrase": "Comprehensive system: Market Socialism, Libertarian Minarchism, Degrowth Economics, Stakeholder Capitalism, Fully Automated Luxury Communism, Participatory Economics, CCO-PTF-CIP-SZH, Integral, Doughnut Economics."}},
  "vector": {
    "C1.1": 1.0, "C1.2a": 1.0, "C1.2b": 0.5, "C1.3": 0.5, "C1.4": 0.5, "C1.5": 0.5,
    "C2.1": 1.0, "C2.2": 0.5, "C2.3": 1.0, "C2.4": 1.0, "C2.5": 0.0,
    "C3.1": 0.5, "C3.2": 0.5, "C3.3": 0.5, "C3.4": 1.0, "C3.5": 0.5,
    "C4.1": 0.5, "C4.2": 0.5, "C4.3": 0.5, "C4.4": 1.0, "C4.5": 0.5,
    "C5.1": 1.0, "C5.2": 0.5, "C5.3": 1.0, "C5.4": 0.5, "C5.5": 0.0
  },
  "summary": {"D1": 4.0, "D2": 3.5, "D3": 3.0, "D4": 3.0, "D5": 3.0, "total": 16.5, "failures": 2, "tier": "Potentially Adequate"},
  "flags": [],
  "joint_readings": [
    {"id": "scored", "label": "as scored", "basis": "scored", "resolve": {}, "result": {"total": 16.5, "failures": 2, "tier": "Potentially Adequate"}}
  ],
  "scenarios": []
}
```
<!-- /NEEC-SUMMARY-BLOCK -->

### Libertarian Minarchism

<!-- NEEC-SUMMARY-BLOCK -->
```json
{
  "schema": "neec-summary-block/1.0",
  "key": "Libertarian Minarchism",
  "code": "LM",
  "display_name": "Libertarian Minarchism",
  "record": {"documents": ["NEEC_Report_v1_6.md", "NEEC_Step1c_Retrofit_C1_2ab_C1_5.md"], "scored": "NEEC v1 (Report Part I), legacy 25-criterion structure; retrofitted to v2 in Session 8 (Step 1c)", "structure": "retrofit-step1c"},
  "scope": {"class": "comprehensive_system", "basis": "assigned", "source": {"file": "SCORING_PROTOCOL.md", "locator": "3.1", "phrase": "Comprehensive system: Market Socialism, Libertarian Minarchism, Degrowth Economics, Stakeholder Capitalism, Fully Automated Luxury Communism, Participatory Economics, CCO-PTF-CIP-SZH, Integral, Doughnut Economics."}},
  "vector": {
    "C1.1": 0.0, "C1.2a": 0.0, "C1.2b": 0.0, "C1.3": 0.0, "C1.4": 0.0, "C1.5": 0.0,
    "C2.1": 0.0, "C2.2": 0.0, "C2.3": 1.0, "C2.4": 1.0, "C2.5": 1.0,
    "C3.1": 0.0, "C3.2": 0.5, "C3.3": 0.0, "C3.4": 0.0, "C3.5": 0.0,
    "C4.1": 0.0, "C4.2": 0.0, "C4.3": 0.0, "C4.4": 0.5, "C4.5": 1.0,
    "C5.1": 0.5, "C5.2": 1.0, "C5.3": 0.5, "C5.4": 0.5, "C5.5": 0.5
  },
  "summary": {"D1": 0.0, "D2": 3.0, "D3": 0.5, "D4": 1.5, "D5": 3.0, "total": 8.0, "failures": 15, "tier": "Structurally Inadequate"},
  "flags": [],
  "joint_readings": [
    {"id": "scored", "label": "as scored", "basis": "scored", "resolve": {}, "result": {"total": 8.0, "failures": 15, "tier": "Structurally Inadequate"}}
  ],
  "scenarios": []
}
```
<!-- /NEEC-SUMMARY-BLOCK -->

### MMT + Job Guarantee

<!-- NEEC-SUMMARY-BLOCK -->
```json
{
  "schema": "neec-summary-block/1.0",
  "key": "MMT + Job Guarantee",
  "code": "MMT",
  "display_name": "MMT + Job Guarantee",
  "record": {"documents": ["NEEC_Report_v1_6.md", "NEEC_Step1c_Retrofit_C1_2ab_C1_5.md"], "scored": "NEEC v1 (Report Part I), legacy 25-criterion structure; retrofitted to v2 in Session 8 (Step 1c)", "structure": "retrofit-step1c"},
  "scope": {"class": "mechanism", "basis": "assigned", "source": {"file": "SCORING_PROTOCOL.md", "locator": "3.1", "phrase": "Mechanism: MMT + Job Guarantee, Universal Basic Income, Universal Basic Services."}},
  "vector": {
    "C1.1": 1.0, "C1.2a": 0.5, "C1.2b": 0.0, "C1.3": 1.0, "C1.4": 0.5, "C1.5": 0.5,
    "C2.1": 0.5, "C2.2": 0.0, "C2.3": 0.5, "C2.4": 1.0, "C2.5": 0.5,
    "C3.1": 1.0, "C3.2": 0.5, "C3.3": 0.5, "C3.4": 1.0, "C3.5": 0.0,
    "C4.1": 0.5, "C4.2": 1.0, "C4.3": 1.0, "C4.4": 0.5, "C4.5": 0.5,
    "C5.1": 0.5, "C5.2": 1.0, "C5.3": 0.5, "C5.4": 0.5, "C5.5": 0.5
  },
  "summary": {"D1": 3.5, "D2": 2.5, "D3": 3.0, "D4": 3.5, "D5": 3.0, "total": 15.5, "failures": 3, "tier": "Partially Adequate"},
  "flags": [
    {"criterion": "C1.2b", "scored": 0.0, "alternatives": [0.5], "basis": "stated", "reading": "C4.4's reduction of capital power read as sufficient", "tracks": null, "source": {"file": "NEEC_Step1c_Retrofit_C1_2ab_C1_5.md", "locator": "document", "phrase": "override this call to 0.5"}}
  ],
  "joint_readings": [
    {"id": "scored", "label": "as scored", "basis": "scored", "resolve": {}, "result": {"total": 15.5, "failures": 3, "tier": "Partially Adequate"}},
    {"id": "up", "label": "every flagged call resolved upward", "basis": "extremes", "resolve": {"C1.2b": 0.5}, "result": {"total": 16.0, "failures": 2, "tier": "Potentially Adequate"}},
    {"id": "down", "label": "every flagged call resolved downward", "basis": "extremes", "resolve": {}, "result": {"total": 15.5, "failures": 3, "tier": "Partially Adequate"}}
  ],
  "scenarios": []
}
```
<!-- /NEEC-SUMMARY-BLOCK -->

### Universal Basic Income

<!-- NEEC-SUMMARY-BLOCK -->
```json
{
  "schema": "neec-summary-block/1.0",
  "key": "Universal Basic Income",
  "code": "UBI",
  "display_name": "Universal Basic Income",
  "record": {"documents": ["NEEC_Report_v1_6.md", "NEEC_Step1c_Retrofit_C1_2ab_C1_5.md"], "scored": "NEEC v1 (Report Part I), legacy 25-criterion structure; retrofitted to v2 in Session 8 (Step 1c)", "structure": "retrofit-step1c"},
  "scope": {"class": "mechanism", "basis": "assigned", "source": {"file": "SCORING_PROTOCOL.md", "locator": "3.1", "phrase": "Mechanism: MMT + Job Guarantee, Universal Basic Income, Universal Basic Services."}},
  "vector": {
    "C1.1": 1.0, "C1.2a": 0.0, "C1.2b": 0.0, "C1.3": 0.5, "C1.4": 1.0, "C1.5": 0.0,
    "C2.1": 1.0, "C2.2": 1.0, "C2.3": 0.5, "C2.4": 0.5, "C2.5": 0.0,
    "C3.1": 1.0, "C3.2": 0.5, "C3.3": 0.5, "C3.4": 1.0, "C3.5": 0.0,
    "C4.1": 0.5, "C4.2": 0.5, "C4.3": 1.0, "C4.4": 0.0, "C4.5": 1.0,
    "C5.1": 1.0, "C5.2": 0.5, "C5.3": 1.0, "C5.4": 0.5, "C5.5": 0.0
  },
  "summary": {"D1": 2.5, "D2": 3.0, "D3": 3.0, "D4": 3.0, "D5": 3.0, "total": 14.5, "failures": 7, "tier": "Structurally Inadequate"},
  "flags": [],
  "joint_readings": [
    {"id": "scored", "label": "as scored", "basis": "scored", "resolve": {}, "result": {"total": 14.5, "failures": 7, "tier": "Structurally Inadequate"}}
  ],
  "scenarios": []
}
```
<!-- /NEEC-SUMMARY-BLOCK -->

### Degrowth Economics

<!-- NEEC-SUMMARY-BLOCK -->
```json
{
  "schema": "neec-summary-block/1.0",
  "key": "Degrowth Economics",
  "code": "DG",
  "display_name": "Degrowth Economics",
  "record": {"documents": ["NEEC_Report_v1_6.md", "NEEC_Step1c_Retrofit_C1_2ab_C1_5.md"], "scored": "NEEC v1 (Report Part I), legacy 25-criterion structure; retrofitted to v2 in Session 8 (Step 1c)", "structure": "retrofit-step1c"},
  "scope": {"class": "comprehensive_system", "basis": "assigned", "source": {"file": "SCORING_PROTOCOL.md", "locator": "3.1", "phrase": "Comprehensive system: Market Socialism, Libertarian Minarchism, Degrowth Economics, Stakeholder Capitalism, Fully Automated Luxury Communism, Participatory Economics, CCO-PTF-CIP-SZH, Integral, Doughnut Economics."}},
  "vector": {
    "C1.1": 1.0, "C1.2a": 0.5, "C1.2b": 1.0, "C1.3": 1.0, "C1.4": 0.5, "C1.5": 0.5,
    "C2.1": 1.0, "C2.2": 0.5, "C2.3": 1.0, "C2.4": 1.0, "C2.5": 0.0,
    "C3.1": 1.0, "C3.2": 0.5, "C3.3": 1.0, "C3.4": 1.0, "C3.5": 0.5,
    "C4.1": 1.0, "C4.2": 1.0, "C4.3": 1.0, "C4.4": 1.0, "C4.5": 1.0,
    "C5.1": 0.5, "C5.2": 0.5, "C5.3": 0.5, "C5.4": 0.0, "C5.5": 0.5
  },
  "summary": {"D1": 4.5, "D2": 3.5, "D3": 4.0, "D4": 5.0, "D5": 2.0, "total": 19.0, "failures": 2, "tier": "Potentially Adequate"},
  "flags": [],
  "joint_readings": [
    {"id": "scored", "label": "as scored", "basis": "scored", "resolve": {}, "result": {"total": 19.0, "failures": 2, "tier": "Potentially Adequate"}}
  ],
  "scenarios": []
}
```
<!-- /NEEC-SUMMARY-BLOCK -->

### Stakeholder Capitalism

<!-- NEEC-SUMMARY-BLOCK -->
```json
{
  "schema": "neec-summary-block/1.0",
  "key": "Stakeholder Capitalism",
  "code": "SC",
  "display_name": "Stakeholder Capitalism",
  "record": {"documents": ["NEEC_Report_v1_6.md", "NEEC_Step1c_Retrofit_C1_2ab_C1_5.md"], "scored": "NEEC v1 (Report Part I), legacy 25-criterion structure; retrofitted to v2 in Session 8 (Step 1c)", "structure": "retrofit-step1c"},
  "scope": {"class": "comprehensive_system", "basis": "assigned", "source": {"file": "SCORING_PROTOCOL.md", "locator": "3.1", "phrase": "Comprehensive system: Market Socialism, Libertarian Minarchism, Degrowth Economics, Stakeholder Capitalism, Fully Automated Luxury Communism, Participatory Economics, CCO-PTF-CIP-SZH, Integral, Doughnut Economics."}},
  "vector": {
    "C1.1": 0.5, "C1.2a": 0.5, "C1.2b": 0.0, "C1.3": 0.5, "C1.4": 0.0, "C1.5": 0.5,
    "C2.1": 0.5, "C2.2": 0.0, "C2.3": 0.5, "C2.4": 0.5, "C2.5": 0.5,
    "C3.1": 0.5, "C3.2": 0.5, "C3.3": 0.5, "C3.4": 1.0, "C3.5": 0.0,
    "C4.1": 0.0, "C4.2": 0.0, "C4.3": 0.5, "C4.4": 0.0, "C4.5": 0.5,
    "C5.1": 0.5, "C5.2": 1.0, "C5.3": 1.0, "C5.4": 0.0, "C5.5": 0.0
  },
  "summary": {"D1": 2.0, "D2": 2.0, "D3": 2.5, "D4": 1.0, "D5": 2.5, "total": 10.0, "failures": 9, "tier": "Structurally Inadequate"},
  "flags": [],
  "joint_readings": [
    {"id": "scored", "label": "as scored", "basis": "scored", "resolve": {}, "result": {"total": 10.0, "failures": 9, "tier": "Structurally Inadequate"}}
  ],
  "scenarios": []
}
```
<!-- /NEEC-SUMMARY-BLOCK -->

### Fully Automated Luxury Communism

<!-- NEEC-SUMMARY-BLOCK -->
```json
{
  "schema": "neec-summary-block/1.0",
  "key": "Fully Automated Luxury Communism",
  "code": "FALC",
  "display_name": "Fully Automated Luxury Communism",
  "record": {"documents": ["NEEC_Report_v1_6.md", "NEEC_Step1c_Retrofit_C1_2ab_C1_5.md"], "scored": "NEEC v1 (Report Part I), legacy 25-criterion structure; retrofitted to v2 in Session 8 (Step 1c)", "structure": "retrofit-step1c"},
  "scope": {"class": "comprehensive_system", "basis": "assigned", "source": {"file": "SCORING_PROTOCOL.md", "locator": "3.1", "phrase": "Comprehensive system: Market Socialism, Libertarian Minarchism, Degrowth Economics, Stakeholder Capitalism, Fully Automated Luxury Communism, Participatory Economics, CCO-PTF-CIP-SZH, Integral, Doughnut Economics."}},
  "vector": {
    "C1.1": 1.0, "C1.2a": 0.0, "C1.2b": 0.0, "C1.3": 1.0, "C1.4": 1.0, "C1.5": 0.0,
    "C2.1": 1.0, "C2.2": 1.0, "C2.3": 1.0, "C2.4": 0.0, "C2.5": 0.0,
    "C3.1": 0.5, "C3.2": 1.0, "C3.3": 0.5, "C3.4": 0.5, "C3.5": 0.5,
    "C4.1": 1.0, "C4.2": 1.0, "C4.3": 0.5, "C4.4": 0.0, "C4.5": 1.0,
    "C5.1": 0.0, "C5.2": 0.0, "C5.3": 0.0, "C5.4": 0.0, "C5.5": 0.5
  },
  "summary": {"D1": 3.0, "D2": 3.0, "D3": 3.0, "D4": 3.5, "D5": 0.5, "total": 13.0, "failures": 10, "tier": "Structurally Inadequate"},
  "flags": [],
  "joint_readings": [
    {"id": "scored", "label": "as scored", "basis": "scored", "resolve": {}, "result": {"total": 13.0, "failures": 10, "tier": "Structurally Inadequate"}}
  ],
  "scenarios": []
}
```
<!-- /NEEC-SUMMARY-BLOCK -->

### Participatory Economics

<!-- NEEC-SUMMARY-BLOCK -->
```json
{
  "schema": "neec-summary-block/1.0",
  "key": "Participatory Economics",
  "code": "PE",
  "display_name": "Participatory Economics",
  "record": {"documents": ["NEEC_Report_v1_6.md", "NEEC_Step1c_Retrofit_C1_2ab_C1_5.md"], "scored": "NEEC v1 (Report Part I), legacy 25-criterion structure; retrofitted to v2 in Session 8 (Step 1c)", "structure": "retrofit-step1c"},
  "scope": {"class": "comprehensive_system", "basis": "assigned", "source": {"file": "SCORING_PROTOCOL.md", "locator": "3.1", "phrase": "Comprehensive system: Market Socialism, Libertarian Minarchism, Degrowth Economics, Stakeholder Capitalism, Fully Automated Luxury Communism, Participatory Economics, CCO-PTF-CIP-SZH, Integral, Doughnut Economics."}},
  "vector": {
    "C1.1": 1.0, "C1.2a": 0.5, "C1.2b": 1.0, "C1.3": 1.0, "C1.4": 1.0, "C1.5": 0.5,
    "C2.1": 1.0, "C2.2": 0.5, "C2.3": 1.0, "C2.4": 1.0, "C2.5": 0.5,
    "C3.1": 1.0, "C3.2": 1.0, "C3.3": 1.0, "C3.4": 1.0, "C3.5": 0.5,
    "C4.1": 1.0, "C4.2": 1.0, "C4.3": 1.0, "C4.4": 1.0, "C4.5": 0.0,
    "C5.1": 0.5, "C5.2": 0.5, "C5.3": 0.5, "C5.4": 0.5, "C5.5": 1.0
  },
  "summary": {"D1": 5.0, "D2": 4.0, "D3": 4.5, "D4": 4.0, "D5": 3.0, "total": 20.5, "failures": 1, "tier": "Potentially Adequate"},
  "flags": [],
  "joint_readings": [
    {"id": "scored", "label": "as scored", "basis": "scored", "resolve": {}, "result": {"total": 20.5, "failures": 1, "tier": "Potentially Adequate"}}
  ],
  "scenarios": []
}
```
<!-- /NEEC-SUMMARY-BLOCK -->

### CCO-PTF-CIP-SZH

<!-- NEEC-SUMMARY-BLOCK -->
```json
{
  "schema": "neec-summary-block/1.0",
  "key": "CCO-PTF-CIP-SZH",
  "code": "CCO",
  "display_name": "CCO-PTF-CIP-SZH",
  "record": {"documents": ["NEEC_Report_v1_6.md", "NEEC_Step1c_Retrofit_C1_2ab_C1_5.md"], "scored": "NEEC v1 (Report Part I), legacy 25-criterion structure; retrofitted to v2 in Session 8 (Step 1c)", "structure": "retrofit-step1c"},
  "scope": {"class": "comprehensive_system", "basis": "assigned", "source": {"file": "SCORING_PROTOCOL.md", "locator": "3.1", "phrase": "Comprehensive system: Market Socialism, Libertarian Minarchism, Degrowth Economics, Stakeholder Capitalism, Fully Automated Luxury Communism, Participatory Economics, CCO-PTF-CIP-SZH, Integral, Doughnut Economics."}},
  "vector": {
    "C1.1": 1.0, "C1.2a": 1.0, "C1.2b": 1.0, "C1.3": 1.0, "C1.4": 1.0, "C1.5": 0.5,
    "C2.1": 1.0, "C2.2": 1.0, "C2.3": 1.0, "C2.4": 1.0, "C2.5": 1.0,
    "C3.1": 1.0, "C3.2": 1.0, "C3.3": 1.0, "C3.4": 1.0, "C3.5": 1.0,
    "C4.1": 1.0, "C4.2": 1.0, "C4.3": 1.0, "C4.4": 1.0, "C4.5": 0.5,
    "C5.1": 1.0, "C5.2": 1.0, "C5.3": 1.0, "C5.4": 1.0, "C5.5": 0.5
  },
  "summary": {"D1": 5.5, "D2": 5.0, "D3": 5.0, "D4": 4.5, "D5": 4.5, "total": 24.5, "failures": 0, "tier": "Potentially Adequate"},
  "flags": [],
  "joint_readings": [
    {"id": "scored", "label": "as scored", "basis": "scored", "resolve": {}, "result": {"total": 24.5, "failures": 0, "tier": "Potentially Adequate"}}
  ],
  "scenarios": []
}
```
<!-- /NEEC-SUMMARY-BLOCK -->

### Integral

<!-- NEEC-SUMMARY-BLOCK -->
```json
{
  "schema": "neec-summary-block/1.0",
  "key": "Integral",
  "code": "INT",
  "display_name": "Integral",
  "record": {"documents": ["NEEC_Paper_v1_4.md", "NEEC_Report_v1_6.md", "NEEC_Step1c_Retrofit_C1_2ab_C1_5.md"], "scored": "NEEC v1 (Paper Appendix E), legacy 25-criterion structure; retrofitted to v2 in Session 8 (Step 1c)", "structure": "retrofit-step1c"},
  "scope": {"class": "comprehensive_system", "basis": "assigned", "source": {"file": "SCORING_PROTOCOL.md", "locator": "3.1", "phrase": "Comprehensive system: Market Socialism, Libertarian Minarchism, Degrowth Economics, Stakeholder Capitalism, Fully Automated Luxury Communism, Participatory Economics, CCO-PTF-CIP-SZH, Integral, Doughnut Economics."}},
  "vector": {
    "C1.1": 0.5, "C1.2a": 0.0, "C1.2b": 1.0, "C1.3": 1.0, "C1.4": 0.5, "C1.5": 0.0,
    "C2.1": 1.0, "C2.2": 0.5, "C2.3": 1.0, "C2.4": 1.0, "C2.5": 1.0,
    "C3.1": 1.0, "C3.2": 1.0, "C3.3": 1.0, "C3.4": 1.0, "C3.5": 1.0,
    "C4.1": 1.0, "C4.2": 1.0, "C4.3": 0.5, "C4.4": 1.0, "C4.5": 1.0,
    "C5.1": 0.5, "C5.2": 0.0, "C5.3": 1.0, "C5.4": 0.5, "C5.5": 0.5
  },
  "summary": {"D1": 3.0, "D2": 4.5, "D3": 5.0, "D4": 4.5, "D5": 2.5, "total": 19.5, "failures": 3, "tier": "Partially Adequate"},
  "flags": [
    {"criterion": "C2.2", "scored": 0.5, "alternatives": [0.0, 1.0], "basis": "stated", "reading": "essentials unconditional (1.0) or contribution-dependent (0.0)", "tracks": null, "source": {"file": "NEEC_Paper_v1_4.md", "locator": "document", "phrase": "Contribution-Dependent (would score 0.0)"}}
  ],
  "joint_readings": [
    {"id": "scored", "label": "as scored", "basis": "scored", "resolve": {}, "result": {"total": 19.5, "failures": 3, "tier": "Partially Adequate"}},
    {"id": "up", "label": "every flagged call resolved upward", "basis": "extremes", "resolve": {"C2.2": 1.0}, "result": {"total": 20.0, "failures": 3, "tier": "Partially Adequate"}},
    {"id": "down", "label": "every flagged call resolved downward", "basis": "extremes", "resolve": {"C2.2": 0.0}, "result": {"total": 19.0, "failures": 4, "tier": "Partially Adequate"}}
  ],
  "scenarios": []
}
```
<!-- /NEEC-SUMMARY-BLOCK -->