{ "schema": "neec-criteria/2.0", "framework": "NEEC Applied, v2.0 criteria: 29 criteria in five domains", "generated_by": "build_criteria.py version 2.3 (Session 48); do not edit by hand", "source": { "base": "criteria_s44_snapshot.json", "base_md5": "d4b78634cd233adb8c00b1a5e0a00821", "record": "NEEC_Criteria_v2_s45.md", "record_md5": "1d1b09e9ec757979be4ce09f99d01093", "clause_splits": "SCORING_PROTOCOL_s44_snapshot.md, Appendix B (thresholds v2.0 leaves unchanged)", "v1": { "document": "NEEC_Paper_v1_4.md", "md5": "5e2c2c3e9dc305c95ed7536db95ba1b8", "excluded_fields": [ "Threshold Justification", "Current Performance" ], "removed_comparative_clauses": [ { "criterion": "C1.4", "clause": "This is NEEC's single most discriminating criterion (Section 11.2)" }, { "criterion": "C2.5", "clause": "This is the criterion most often failed by otherwise-strong systems in this corpus (four of the six Potentially/Partially Adequate systems fail it)" }, { "criterion": "C4.2", "clause": "NEEC's second most discriminating criterion (Section 11.2)" } ], "corrections": [ { "criterion": "C1.2a", "field": "anchors.threshold", "kind": "wording", "basis": "decision D28(g): the anchor's threshold line is the definition's Pass Threshold, verbatim" }, { "criterion": "C1.2b", "field": "anchors.threshold", "kind": "wording", "basis": "decision D28(g): the anchor's threshold line is the definition's Pass Threshold, verbatim" }, { "criterion": "C1.3", "field": "anchors.threshold", "kind": "wording", "basis": "decision D28(g): the anchor's threshold line is the definition's Pass Threshold, verbatim" }, { "criterion": "C1.4", "field": "anchors.threshold", "kind": "wording", "basis": "decision D28(g): the anchor's threshold line is the definition's Pass Threshold, verbatim" }, { "criterion": "C1.5", "field": "anchors.note", "kind": "moved", "basis": "decision D28(g): band reasoning formerly appended to the threshold line" }, { "criterion": "C1.5", "field": "anchors.threshold", "kind": "wording", "basis": "decision D28(g): the anchor's threshold line is the definition's Pass Threshold, verbatim" }, { "criterion": "C2.1", "field": "anchors.threshold", "kind": "substantive", "basis": "decision D28(g): the anchor's threshold line is the definition's Pass Threshold, verbatim", "departure": "dropped the revealed-preference elaboration (noted by the R4 audit, outside its four)" }, { "criterion": "C2.2", "field": "anchors.threshold", "kind": "substantive", "basis": "decision D28(g): the anchor's threshold line is the definition's Pass Threshold, verbatim", "departure": "dropped the population clause 'for all residents' and the list of basic needs, and added the Measurement line's conditions (found in Session 36)" }, { "criterion": "C2.3", "field": "anchors.threshold", "kind": "wording", "basis": "decision D28(g): the anchor's threshold line is the definition's Pass Threshold, verbatim" }, { "criterion": "C2.4", "field": "anchors.threshold", "kind": "wording", "basis": "decision D28(g): the anchor's threshold line is the definition's Pass Threshold, verbatim" }, { "criterion": "C2.5", "field": "anchors.threshold", "kind": "substantive", "basis": "decision D28(g): the anchor's threshold line is the definition's Pass Threshold, verbatim", "departure": "dropped 'voluntary association protected' (R4 audit)" }, { "criterion": "C3.1", "field": "anchors.threshold", "kind": "substantive", "basis": "decision D28(g): the anchor's threshold line is the definition's Pass Threshold, verbatim", "departure": "added 'no legislative delay' from the Measurement line and dropped the 1:1 example (R4 audit)" }, { "criterion": "C3.2", "field": "anchors.threshold", "kind": "wording", "basis": "decision D28(g): the anchor's threshold line is the definition's Pass Threshold, verbatim" }, { "criterion": "C3.3", "field": "anchors.threshold", "kind": "wording", "basis": "decision D28(g): the anchor's threshold line is the definition's Pass Threshold, verbatim" }, { "criterion": "C3.4", "field": "anchors.threshold", "kind": "wording", "basis": "decision D28(g): the anchor's threshold line is the definition's Pass Threshold, verbatim" }, { "criterion": "C3.5", "field": "anchors.threshold", "kind": "wording", "basis": "decision D28(g): the anchor's threshold line is the definition's Pass Threshold, verbatim" }, { "criterion": "C4.1", "field": "anchors.threshold", "kind": "wording", "basis": "decision D28(g): the anchor's threshold line is the definition's Pass Threshold, verbatim" }, { "criterion": "C4.2", "field": "anchors.threshold", "kind": "wording", "basis": "decision D28(g): the anchor's threshold line is the definition's Pass Threshold, verbatim" }, { "criterion": "C4.3", "field": "anchors.threshold", "kind": "wording", "basis": "decision D28(g): the anchor's threshold line is the definition's Pass Threshold, verbatim" }, { "criterion": "C4.4", "field": "anchors.threshold", "kind": "wording", "basis": "decision D28(g): the anchor's threshold line is the definition's Pass Threshold, verbatim" }, { "criterion": "C4.5", "field": "anchors.threshold", "kind": "wording", "basis": "decision D28(g): the anchor's threshold line is the definition's Pass Threshold, verbatim" }, { "criterion": "C5.1", "field": "anchors.threshold", "kind": "substantive", "basis": "decision D28(g): the anchor's threshold line is the definition's Pass Threshold, verbatim", "departure": "dropped 'matching claimed benefits' (R4 audit)" }, { "criterion": "C5.2", "field": "anchors.threshold", "kind": "wording", "basis": "decision D28(g): the anchor's threshold line is the definition's Pass Threshold, verbatim" }, { "criterion": "C5.3", "field": "anchors.threshold", "kind": "substantive", "basis": "decision D28(g): the anchor's threshold line is the definition's Pass Threshold, verbatim", "departure": "dropped 'through modeling' and 'coordination protocols established' (R4 audit)" }, { "criterion": "C5.4", "field": "anchors.threshold", "kind": "wording", "basis": "decision D28(g): the anchor's threshold line is the definition's Pass Threshold, verbatim" }, { "criterion": "C5.5", "field": "anchors.threshold", "kind": "wording", "basis": "decision D28(g): the anchor's threshold line is the definition's Pass Threshold, verbatim" }, { "criterion": "C3.2", "field": "anchors.bands.0.0", "kind": "band", "basis": "decision D26 (revision R3); Correction 7's stale count removed from this anchor" }, { "criterion": "C3.2", "field": "anchors.bands.0.5", "kind": "band", "basis": "decision D26 (revision R3); Correction 7's stale count removed from this anchor" } ] } }, "scale": { "values": [ 0.0, 0.5, 1.0 ], "labels": { "1.0": "Pass", "0.5": "Partial / Conditional", "0.0": "Full Failure" }, "rule": "Reason continuously, then round once, at the criterion level (Appendix H.3)." }, "structure": { "criteria": 29, "total_max": 29.0, "domain_max": { "D1": 6.0, "D2": 6.0, "D3": 6.0, "D4": 6.0, "D5": 5.0 }, "tiers_note": "Tier bands stay integer failure counts (0-2, 3-5, 6+) on 29 criteria (decision 45.1); Paper v2.0 Appendix A.4 reports the proportional alternative." }, "tiers": [ { "name": "Potentially Adequate", "failures_min": 0, "failures_max": 2 }, { "name": "Partially Adequate", "failures_min": 3, "failures_max": 5 }, { "name": "Structurally Inadequate", "failures_min": 6, "failures_max": 29 } ], "domains": [ { "id": "D1", "name": "Material Security", "core_question": "Can the system provide material necessities reliably and universally?", "criteria": [ "C1.1", "C1.2a", "C1.2b", "C1.3", "C1.4", "C1.5" ] }, { "id": "D2", "name": "Human Autonomy", "core_question": "Does the system maximize human freedom and self-determination?", "criteria": [ "C2.1", "C2.2", "C2.3", "C2.4", "C2.5", "C2.6" ] }, { "id": "D3", "name": "System Resilience", "core_question": "Can the system maintain function under stress and adapt to change?", "criteria": [ "C3.1", "C3.2", "C3.3", "C3.4", "C3.5", "C3.6" ] }, { "id": "D4", "name": "Ethical Integrity", "core_question": "Does the system satisfy justice requirements across time, groups, and power?", "criteria": [ "C4.1", "C4.2", "C4.3", "C4.4", "C4.5", "C4.6" ] }, { "id": "D5", "name": "Implementation Viability", "core_question": "Can the system actually be built and sustained?", "criteria": [ "C5.1", "C5.2", "C5.3", "C5.4", "C5.5" ] } ], "classes": { "W": "wording, commentary or disclosure only", "D": "clauses deleted only", "I": "indicator named for an unchanged clause and bar", "M": "bar, measure or clause restated", "N": "new criterion", "U": "unchanged" }, "criteria": [ { "id": "C1.1", "domain": "D1", "name": "Poverty Elimination Capacity", "definition": { "derivation": "From N1 (Human Flourishing) + N2 (Labor Non-Necessity) + N3 (Coercion Minimization)", "requirement": "Near-universal elimination of poverty within a measurable timeframe: ≥90% poverty reduction within 20 years under base scenario, ≥85% under stress testing.", "measurement_protocol": "Poverty definition: a person is poor whose household income or consumption per person is below the World Bank Societal Poverty Line (SPL) for their economy, the line the Bank derives from the cost of basic needs as it rises with median income (a floor at the international poverty line plus half the median), in 2021 PPP international dollars; the line's parameters are revised with each PPP round, and the round used is stated. Data sources: the World Bank Poverty and Inequality Platform; for a design, the rate projected at the same line in the economy the design is proposed for. Calculation: poverty reduction = (baseline rate − rate at year 20) / baseline rate × 100%, the baseline being the rate at the stated base year (the adoption year for a design; for a configured national economy, the start of the 20-year window ending at its stated date). Temporal tracking: at baseline and at 5-year intervals, distinguishing temporary from persistent poverty.", "pass_threshold": "≥90% poverty reduction within 20 years under base scenario, ≥85% under stress testing", "indicators": "World Bank Poverty and Inequality Platform, poverty headcount at the Societal Poverty Line (2021 PPP).", "clauses": [ "≥90% poverty reduction within 20 years under base scenario", "≥85% under stress testing" ] }, "anchors": { "threshold": "≥90% poverty reduction within 20 years under base scenario, ≥85% under stress testing.", "note": "(Note: Section 6's \"Requirement\" line states an aspirational 95%; the operative Pass Threshold used for actual scoring throughout this corpus is 90%/85% — use the Pass Threshold, not the Requirement line, when the two differ, and flag any future criterion where this gap exists rather than silently picking one.)", "bands": { "1.0": { "text": "Documented or credibly projected reduction meeting the threshold. *Nordic Social Democracy (1.0): \"Achieves 94-96% poverty elimination through comprehensive welfare state,\" a documented real-world figure clearing the bar.*", "examples": [ { "system": "Nordic Social Democracy", "cited": 1.0 } ] }, "0.5": { "text": "Real but partial reduction (roughly 30-89% documented), or a threshold-clearing claim resting on favorable/untested assumptions. *Status Quo Market Capitalism (0.5): \"15-25% reduction... far below the 95% elimination threshold\" — note this is actually below even the 0.5 band's usual floor, but scored 0.5 rather than 0.0 because a real, functioning mechanism (welfare programs) exists, however inadequate; contrast with C1.1's 0.0 anchor below, which requires absence of any state mechanism, not merely an inadequate one.*", "examples": [ { "system": "Status Quo Market Capitalism", "cited": 0.5 } ] }, "0.0": { "text": "No structural mechanism, or explicit ideological refusal of poverty elimination as a legitimate system function. *Libertarian Minarchism (0.0): \"ideologically refuses poverty elimination as a state function... relies entirely on private charity.\"*", "examples": [ { "system": "Libertarian Minarchism", "cited": 0.0 } ] } } }, "sources": { "definition": "Paper Section 6; restated in v2.0 (NEEC_Criteria_v2_s45.md, Appendix V)", "anchors": "Paper Appendix H.7", "threshold": "Paper Section 6, Pass Threshold, verbatim (decision D28(g))" }, "revision": { "cls": "I", "codes": [ "K6", "R2" ] } }, { "id": "C1.2a", "domain": "D1", "name": "Wealth Building for Resilience", "definition": { "derivation": "From N4 (Universal Wealth Access) + N3 (Coercion Minimization) — unchanged from legacy C1.2's derivation, since this sub-criterion inherits the resilience-buffer half of what legacy C1.2 asked.", "requirement": "Genuine asset building enabling ≥$60,000 median net-wealth accumulation over 20 years for 70%+ of participants, in constant 2019 US dollars at purchasing-power parity, for participants who engage with whatever wealth-building mechanism the system provides.", "distinguishes": "C1.2a from C1.2b. C1.2a asks only whether a genuine buffer-building mechanism exists and reaches a substantial share of participants — not whether the resulting distribution of wealth across the whole population is itself equitable or concentration-resistant (that is C1.2b's question, immediately below). A system can score well on one while failing the other: a system that lets most participants build savings through ordinary market mechanisms, but does nothing to prevent the top decile from pulling away, could plausibly pass C1.2a while failing C1.2b; conversely, Integral's ITC dissolution is close to the strongest possible C1.2b answer in the corpus while scoring 0.0 here, since credits that dissolve on use cannot function as anyone's buffer (Appendix E, Appendix H.7v2 below).", "measurement_protocol": "Wealth definition: net worth (total assets − total liabilities), including housing equity, retirement accounts, savings, investment accounts, business ownership and system-specific wealth mechanisms (e.g., PTF acres). Data: longitudinal tracking of the same households over 20-year periods in a household wealth survey (the Luxembourg Wealth Study, the Eurosystem Household Finance and Consumption Survey, or a national equivalent); for a design, the projected accumulation. Price basis: local-currency values are deflated to 2019 prices by the national consumer price index and converted at the World Bank's 2019 PPP conversion factor for private consumption; the figure is the one the Paper calibrated on 2019 US data. Median focus: the median, not the mean, to avoid skew from top wealth holders.", "pass_threshold": "≥$60,000 median net-wealth accumulation over 20 years for 70%+ of participants, in constant 2019 US dollars at purchasing-power parity", "indicators": "Luxembourg Wealth Study; Eurosystem HFCS; national wealth surveys; World Bank WDI PPP conversion factor, private consumption (2019).", "clauses": [ "≥$60,000 median net-wealth accumulation over 20 years for 70%+ of participants, in constant 2019 US dollars at purchasing-power parity" ] }, "anchors": { "threshold": "≥$60,000 median net-wealth accumulation over 20 years for 70%+ of participants, in constant 2019 US dollars at purchasing-power parity.", "note": "v2.0 (Session 45): this criterion's Pass Threshold was restated (K6, R2; NEEC_Criteria_v2_s45.md). The band texts and examples were written against Paper v1.4's threshold: they describe, and the threshold above governs (protocol 2.3(g)). Examples are re-estimated in the rescoring pass.", "bands": { "1.0": { "text": "A genuine, documented asset-accumulation mechanism reaching most participants. *Market Socialism's published C1.2=1.0 rested on: \"Cooperative membership provides ownership stake and wealth accumulation... members accumulate substantial wealth through capital accounts and profit distribution\" — evidence that speaks almost entirely to the buffer-building question, making C1.2a≈1.0 the most defensible illustrative decomposition (see also Appendix H.8a).*", "examples": [ { "system": "Market Socialism", "cited": 1.0 } ] }, "0.5": { "text": "Some accumulation mechanism exists but is narrow, indirect, or held collectively rather than individually — real, but not clearly clearing the household-buffer bar as stated. *Degrowth Economics' published C1.2=0.5 rested on: \"Commons-based wealth (community land trusts, cooperatives) provides collective security. However, individual wealth accumulation is ideologically discouraged\" — a genuinely different conception of security than a $60,000 household buffer, illustrating the 0.5 band well.*", "examples": [ { "system": "Degrowth Economics", "cited": 0.5 } ] }, "0.0": { "text": "No accumulation mechanism at all. *Integral's published C1.2=0.0 (Appendix E) was justified entirely in resilience-buffer terms — \"no accumulated cushion for medical emergencies, family disruptions, or temporary inability to contribute... cannot build assets to pass to children\" — making this the cleanest possible C1.2a=0.0 case in the corpus: the evidence never engages the concentration question at all. Universal Basic Income's published C1.2=0.0 (\"provides income but no wealth-building mechanisms... maintains wealth-excluded underclass\") is a second clean example.*", "examples": [ { "system": "Universal Basic Income", "cited": 0.0 }, { "system": "Integral", "cited": 0.0 } ] } } }, "sources": { "definition": "Paper Section 12.3; restated in v2.0 (NEEC_Criteria_v2_s45.md, Appendix V)", "anchors": "Paper Appendix H.7v2", "threshold": "Paper Section 12.3, Pass Threshold, verbatim (decision D28(g)); restated in v2.0 (NEEC_Criteria_v2_s45.md, Appendix V)" }, "revision": { "cls": "M", "codes": [ "K6", "R2" ] } }, { "id": "C1.2b", "domain": "D1", "name": "Prevention of Exploitative Accumulation", "definition": { "derivation": "From N4 (Universal Wealth Access) + N7 (Governance Legitimacy and Anti-Capture) — a new derivation pairing for this sub-criterion: N4 supplies the \"wealth is power\" logic, N7 supplies the anti-capture framing that concentration specifically threatens.", "requirement": "The system structurally prevents wealth concentration sufficient to enable governance capture or exploitative leverage over others — independent of whether the system also enables broad-based accumulation (C1.2a's question, not this one).", "measurement": "Wealth Gini coefficient, population-wide, tracked over time. Distinct from an accumulation mechanism's mere existence (C1.2a): a system with a real, reaching wealth-building mechanism can still fail C1.2b if that mechanism's gains compound unevenly (e.g., early or high-income participants accumulate disproportionately over successive years). Scorers should weigh whether prevention is *structural* — a hard cap, non-transferability, credit dissolution, progressive mechanisms, cooperative or collective ownership forms that don't permit unlimited individual accumulation — versus *incidental*, a Gini figure that happens to be low today with no mechanism holding it there under stress or over a longer horizon.", "pass_threshold": "Gini <0.35 for wealth distribution", "threshold_note": "Moved from legacy C1.5's Pass Threshold, per the boundary resolution in Paper Section 12.2 (commentary moved out of the threshold in v2.0).", "clauses": [ "Gini <0.35 for wealth distribution" ] }, "anchors": { "threshold": "Gini <0.35 for wealth distribution.", "note": "v2.0 (Session 45): this criterion's Pass Threshold was reworded without a change of bar (W; NEEC_Criteria_v2_s45.md); the band texts stand.", "bands": { "1.0": { "text": "A structural mechanism that prevents concentration outright, not merely a favorable Gini figure. *Integral's ITC design — \"credits...cannot be traded, saved, speculated on, accumulated, or converted into influence... just like an energy cycle, not a currency\" (Appendix E) — is close to the strongest possible C1.2b answer in the corpus, illustrating exactly the \"aces (b), fails (a)\" case Section 12.1 describes. CCO-PTF's own C4.4 write-up separately projects Gini <0.35 through a different mechanism — conversion limits and acre-equity distribution — and would be a second 1.0 candidate.*", "examples": [ { "system": "Integral", "cited": 1.0 }, { "system": "CCO-PTF-CIP-SZH", "cited": 1.0 } ] }, "0.5": { "text": "Real, meaningful reduction in concentration relative to unregulated capitalism, without a structural mechanism confirmed to hold it below the threshold. *The corpus's existing \"cooperative systems: Gini 0.40-0.50\" figure (Section 12.3's Current Performance) — real progress attributable to distributed ownership, but not confirmed under 0.35; see Appendix H.8a for a worked estimate along these lines.*", "examples": [] }, "0.0": { "text": "No structural prevention mechanism; concentration compounds without limit. *Status Quo Market Capitalism's Gini 0.85 figure, alongside C4.4's own finding that \"wealth concentration enables governance capture\" — a direct, well-evidenced 0.0.*", "examples": [ { "system": "Status Quo Market Capitalism", "cited": 0.0 } ] } } }, "sources": { "definition": "Paper Section 12.3; restated in v2.0 (NEEC_Criteria_v2_s45.md, Appendix V)", "anchors": "Paper Appendix H.7v2", "threshold": "Paper Section 12.3, Pass Threshold, verbatim (decision D28(g)); restated in v2.0 (NEEC_Criteria_v2_s45.md, Appendix V)" }, "revision": { "cls": "W", "codes": [ "W" ] } }, { "id": "C1.3", "domain": "D1", "name": "Housing Security", "definition": { "derivation": "From N1 (Human Flourishing) + N3 (Coercion Minimization)", "requirement": "≥88% housing stability resistant to market volatility, with housing affordable to households at 80% of the regional median disposable income.", "rationale": "Housing represents the largest expense (30-50% of income) and primary wealth-building mechanism. Systems failing to address housing commodification cannot claim comprehensive security. Stability means maintaining housing over 5+ years without involuntary displacement.", "measurement": "Housing stability rate = percentage of participants maintaining stable housing over 5-year periods without involuntary displacement from foreclosure, eviction, or inability to afford rent increases. Affordability: housing costs (rent or mortgage payments plus utilities) no more than 30% of disposable income for a household at 80% of the regional median household disposable income, from the OECD Affordable Housing Database, EU-SILC or national household surveys; for a design, projected on the same measure.", "pass_threshold": "≥88% housing stability over 5-year periods, housing costs ≤30% of disposable income at 80% of regional median household disposable income", "benchmark": "Community Land Trusts achieve 10x lower foreclosure rates than conventional mortgages (0.46% vs 3.26% during 2008-2010 crisis).", "indicators": "household panel surveys for displacement; OECD Affordable Housing Database; EU-SILC; national household surveys.", "clauses": [ "≥88% housing stability over 5-year periods", "housing costs ≤30% of disposable income at 80% of regional median household disposable income" ] }, "anchors": { "threshold": "≥88% housing stability over 5-year periods, housing costs ≤30% of disposable income at 80% of regional median household disposable income.", "note": "v2.0 (Session 45): this criterion's Pass Threshold was restated (K6, R2; NEEC_Criteria_v2_s45.md). The band texts and examples were written against Paper v1.4's threshold: they describe, and the threshold above governs (protocol 2.3(g)). Examples are re-estimated in the rescoring pass.", "bands": { "1.0": { "text": "Structural decommodification or strong regulatory stabilization with a documented or clearly-designed stability rate at or above threshold. *Centrally Planned Socialism (1.0): \"Universal housing provision through state allocation... homelessness essentially eliminated.\"*", "examples": [ { "system": "Centrally Planned Socialism", "cited": 1.0 } ] }, "0.5": { "text": "Partial protection or a real but incomplete mechanism — e.g., some cooperative/social housing alongside a still-dominant market allocation. *Universal Basic Income (0.5): \"Stable income improves housing security... but without housing policy, landlords can capture UBI through rent increases.\"*", "examples": [ { "system": "Universal Basic Income", "cited": 0.5 } ] }, "0.0": { "text": "Pure market allocation with no stabilizing mechanism. *Libertarian Minarchism (0.0): \"Pure market allocation with no stabilization... homelessness treated as individual failing rather than systemic outcome.\"*", "examples": [ { "system": "Libertarian Minarchism", "cited": 0.0 } ] } } }, "sources": { "definition": "Paper Section 6; restated in v2.0 (NEEC_Criteria_v2_s45.md, Appendix V)", "anchors": "Paper Appendix H.7", "threshold": "Paper Section 6, Pass Threshold, verbatim (decision D28(g)); restated in v2.0 (NEEC_Criteria_v2_s45.md, Appendix V)" }, "revision": { "cls": "M", "codes": [ "K6", "R2" ] } }, { "id": "C1.4", "domain": "D1", "name": "Automation Resilience", "definition": { "derivation": "From N2 (Labor Non-Necessity) + N11 (Automation Compatibility)", "requirement": "Maintain material security as human labor becomes increasingly optional: poverty <8% and aggregate demand >85% of baseline in each of three scenarios in which 30%, 50% and 70% of baseline paid working hours are displaced by automation.", "rationale": "This criterion alone disqualifies most existing frameworks. When machines replace humans at scale, systems dependent on wage labor for both income and aggregate demand collapse into deflationary spirals that no monetary policy can resolve.", "measurement": "Stress test across the three automation scenarios, a displacement of 30%, 50% or 70% of baseline paid working hours, with no assumption about when each occurs. In each, poverty is measured at the Societal Poverty Line, as in C1.1, and aggregate demand as real final consumption expenditure relative to the pre-displacement baseline. The Pass Threshold's figures apply in every scenario.", "pass_threshold": "Poverty <8% and aggregate demand >85% baseline in each of the 30%, 50% and 70% displacement scenarios", "indicators": "Societal Poverty Line (as C1.1); national accounts final consumption expenditure; for a design, its own model of the three scenarios.", "clauses": [ "Poverty <8%", "aggregate demand >85% baseline" ], "clause_scope": "in each of the 30%, 50% and 70% displacement scenarios" }, "anchors": { "threshold": "Poverty <8% and aggregate demand >85% baseline in each of the 30%, 50% and 70% displacement scenarios.", "note": "Apply it carefully; see also Appendix G for a documented case where a candidate evidentiary source (a companion simulation) could not actually be used to evaluate a system at this criterion's higher severities. v2.0 (Session 45): this criterion's Pass Threshold was reworded without a change of bar (K6, R1; NEEC_Criteria_v2_s45.md); the band texts stand.", "bands": { "1.0": { "text": "An explicit mechanism decoupling income/demand from employment, robust in the system's own design logic across displacement severities. *CCO-PTF-CIP-SZH (1.0): \"Stress testing shows the system maintains poverty <5% and aggregate demand 90-110% baseline across 30%, 50%, 70% job displacement scenarios.\"*", "examples": [ { "system": "CCO-PTF-CIP-SZH", "cited": 1.0 } ] }, "0.5": { "text": "A buffer or partial mechanism exists but is not designed for or shown to survive the higher-severity scenarios. *Nordic Social Democracy (0.5): \"Generous unemployment benefits... still fundamentally dependent on wage labor for tax revenue and social cohesion. Cannot sustain 50-70% displacement scenarios.\"*", "examples": [ { "system": "Nordic Social Democracy", "cited": 0.5 } ] }, "0.0": { "text": "No mechanism; system structurally requires wage labor for both income distribution and demand. *Status Quo Market Capitalism (0.0): \"No mechanism exists to maintain either as automation advances... would trigger a deflationary spiral.\"*", "examples": [ { "system": "Status Quo Market Capitalism", "cited": 0.0 } ] } } }, "sources": { "definition": "Paper Section 6; restated in v2.0 (NEEC_Criteria_v2_s45.md, Appendix V)", "anchors": "Paper Appendix H.7", "threshold": "Paper Section 6, Pass Threshold, verbatim (decision D28(g)); restated in v2.0 (NEEC_Criteria_v2_s45.md, Appendix V)" }, "revision": { "cls": "I", "codes": [ "K6", "R1" ] } }, { "id": "C1.5", "domain": "D1", "name": "Universal Wealth Access", "definition": { "derivation": "From N4 (Universal Wealth Access) + N7 (Anti-Capture) — unchanged from legacy C1.5.", "requirement": "All participants access wealth-building mechanisms, not merely income transfers. Prevent a permanent wealth-excluded underclass — measured by *breadth of access*, not by the resulting distribution's evenness (that is now C1.2b's question, not this one).", "rationale": "Systems limiting wealth-building *access* to a subset of participants — whether by capital ownership, employment status, or cooperative membership — leave the excluded group structurally dependent regardless of how equitable the wealth distribution is among those who do have access. Universal access is a distinct requirement from bounded concentration: a system could hypothetically score well on C1.2b (low overall Gini) while still leaving a meaningful population segment with no accumulation pathway at all — for instance, a strict membership-gated cooperative sector that is internally quite equal but reaches only part of the population, which is exactly Market Socialism's documented profile (Section 6, C1.5 legacy anchor; Appendix H.7v2 below).", "distinguishes": "Equality of access (required — this criterion) from equality of outcomes (not required, and never was) and from bounded concentration (a separate question, now C1.2b — see Section 12.2 for why these were split apart rather than left combined).", "measurement": "Percentage of population with an active wealth accumulation pathway (not just eligibility, but an actual mechanism producing asset growth).", "pass_threshold": "≥80% population with an active wealth-accumulation pathway", "threshold_note": "Gini clause removed, moved to C1.2b, Paper Section 12.2 (commentary moved out of the threshold in v2.0).", "clauses": [ "≥80% population with an active wealth-accumulation pathway" ] }, "anchors": { "threshold": "≥80% population with an active wealth-accumulation pathway.", "note": "This band's reasoning is unchanged from legacy C1.5's anchors (H.7 above); narrowing the threshold doesn't change which systems clear an access-breadth bar, only removes a second, now-separate test that used to ride alongside it. v2.0 (Session 45): this criterion's Pass Threshold was reworded without a change of bar (W; NEEC_Criteria_v2_s45.md); the band texts stand.", "bands": { "1.0": { "text": "Broad-based access not contingent on prior wealth or narrow membership. *Nordic Social Democracy (1.0): \"Approximately 70% have wealth accumulation pathways... meets the threshold for broad-based access\" — 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.*", "examples": [ { "system": "Nordic Social Democracy", "cited": 1.0 } ] }, "0.5": { "text": "Access exists but is gated such that a meaningful population segment is excluded. *Market Socialism (0.5): \"Members have wealth access, but require cooperative membership. Unemployed, between jobs, or unable to work lack access.\"*", "examples": [ { "system": "Market Socialism", "cited": 0.5 } ] }, "0.0": { "text": "Access concentrated among those already positioned to have it. *Libertarian Minarchism (0.0): \"Wealth concentration accelerates without redistributive mechanisms... only those born with capital have genuine wealth-building access.\"*", "examples": [ { "system": "Libertarian Minarchism", "cited": 0.0 } ] } } }, "sources": { "definition": "Paper Section 12.3; restated in v2.0 (NEEC_Criteria_v2_s45.md, Appendix V)", "anchors": "Paper Appendix H.7v2", "threshold": "Paper Section 12.3, Pass Threshold, verbatim (decision D28(g)); restated in v2.0 (NEEC_Criteria_v2_s45.md, Appendix V)" }, "revision": { "cls": "W", "codes": [ "W" ] } }, { "id": "C2.1", "domain": "D2", "name": "Freedom from Coercion", "definition": { "derivation": "From N3 (Coercion Minimization) + N2 (Labor Non-Necessity)", "requirement": "Eliminate survival-based economic compulsion without creating new forms of control (bureaucratic, social pressure, surveillance)", "rationale": "\"Work this job or face homelessness\" represents baseline coercion regardless of formal freedom. But replacing market coercion with bureaucratic control (work requirements, behavior conditions, means testing) or social pressure (community surveillance, conformity enforcement) merely trades cages.", "measurement": "Clause 1: the share of adults satisfied with their freedom to choose what they do with their life (Gallup World Poll; published as \"freedom to make life choices\" in the World Happiness Report data), read as the share reporting genuine autonomy in major life decisions. Clause 2 is aspirational: no agency publishes revealed-preference evidence of this kind, and a 1.0 requires the scoring document to name a study or record that shows it (for example, behavior observed when an unconditional alternative exists). This is the one home of the share of decisions free of coercion; C4.5 no longer measures it. For a design, both clauses are estimated on the same measures.", "pass_threshold": "≥70% report genuine autonomy in major life decisions, validated through revealed preference showing acceptance of initially refused employment/living situations when alternatives exist", "indicators": "clause 1, Gallup World Poll (World Happiness Report data); clause 2, aspirational.", "clauses": [ "≥70% report genuine autonomy in major life decisions", "validated through revealed preference showing acceptance of initially refused employment/living situations when alternatives exist" ] }, "anchors": { "threshold": "≥70% report genuine autonomy in major life decisions, validated through revealed preference showing acceptance of initially refused employment/living situations when alternatives exist.", "note": "", "bands": { "1.0": { "text": "Structural design removes survival-based compulsion without substituting a comparably coercive replacement. *Universal Basic Income (1.0): \"Pilots show 65-75% report increased autonomy... genuine choice because survival is not contingent on accepting any available job.\"*", "examples": [ { "system": "Universal Basic Income", "cited": 1.0 } ] }, "0.5": { "text": "Meaningfully reduces coercion relative to a harsher baseline but does not eliminate it. *Status Quo Market Capitalism (0.5): \"Only 15-25% report genuine autonomy... though better than complete absence of choice.\"*", "examples": [ { "system": "Status Quo Market Capitalism", "cited": 0.5 } ] }, "0.0": { "text": "Eliminates one form of coercion only to substitute another of comparable severity, or maximizes economic coercion by design. *Centrally Planned Socialism (0.0): \"Eliminated market coercion but replaced with state coercion.\"* *Libertarian Minarchism (0.0): \"Eliminates state coercion but maximizes economic coercion... all market exchanges occur under duress for those lacking capital.\"*", "examples": [ { "system": "Centrally Planned Socialism", "cited": 0.0 }, { "system": "Libertarian Minarchism", "cited": 0.0 } ] } } }, "sources": { "definition": "Paper Section 6; restated in v2.0 (NEEC_Criteria_v2_s45.md, Appendix V)", "anchors": "Paper Appendix H.7", "threshold": "Paper Section 6, Pass Threshold, verbatim (decision D28(g))" }, "revision": { "cls": "I", "codes": [ "K5", "R3" ] } }, { "id": "C2.2", "domain": "D2", "name": "Labor Non-Necessity", "definition": { "derivation": "From N2 (Labor Non-Necessity) + N1 (Human Flourishing)", "requirement": "Survival and dignity not contingent on labor market participation. Unconditional baseline security with voluntary contribution pathways.", "rationale": "As automation makes labor optional, tying survival to employment creates artificial scarcity. Post-scarcity ethics requires decoupling survival from employment while maintaining contribution recognition and advancement opportunities.", "distinguishes": "Labor opportunity (valuable) from labor compulsion (coercive). Systems can and should provide meaningful work opportunities without making survival contingent on employment.", "measurement": "Provision of unconditional basic security covering essential needs (housing, food, healthcare, utilities) without work requirements, behavior conditions, or means testing.", "pass_threshold": "Unconditional provision covering 100% of basic needs (housing, food, healthcare, utilities) for all residents", "disclosure": "\"Unconditional\" is the content of N2 itself, not an instrument clause, and stays; this is the one criterion that favors unconditional-provision designs by definition, and Paper v2.0 says so.", "clauses": [ "Unconditional provision covering 100% of basic needs (housing, food, healthcare, utilities) for all residents" ] }, "anchors": { "threshold": "Unconditional provision covering 100% of basic needs (housing, food, healthcare, utilities) for all residents.", "note": "This threshold is binary in character (unconditional or not) more than most others — score accordingly; partial credit here specifically means *time-limited or conditional* provision, not \"provision covering less than 100% of needs.\"", "bands": { "1.0": { "text": "Provision is explicitly unconditional. *Fully Automated Luxury Communism (1.0): \"labor becomes an optional hobby rather than survival requirement.\"* *CCO-PTF-CIP-SZH (1.0): \"No work requirements, behavior conditions, or means testing.\"*", "examples": [ { "system": "Fully Automated Luxury Communism", "cited": 1.0 }, { "system": "CCO-PTF-CIP-SZH", "cited": 1.0 } ] }, "0.5": { "text": "A real baseline exists but is time-limited, conditional, or requires some ongoing contribution. *Nordic Social Democracy (0.5): \"Generous... benefits provide baseline security, but still time-limited and conditional.\"*", "examples": [ { "system": "Nordic Social Democracy", "cited": 0.5 } ] }, "0.0": { "text": "No baseline security independent of labor market participation, whether by absence or by ideological commitment to full employment. *Status Quo Market Capitalism (0.0): \"Survival entirely contingent on labor market participation or charity.\"* *MMT+Job Guarantee (0.0): \"Ideologically committed to full employment... fundamentally rejects the premise that labor can become optional.\"*", "examples": [ { "system": "Status Quo Market Capitalism", "cited": 0.0 }, { "system": "MMT + Job Guarantee", "cited": 0.0 } ] } } }, "sources": { "definition": "Paper Section 6; restated in v2.0 (NEEC_Criteria_v2_s45.md, Appendix V)", "anchors": "Paper Appendix H.7", "threshold": "Paper Section 6, Pass Threshold, verbatim (decision D28(g))" }, "revision": { "cls": "W", "codes": [ "R4" ] } }, { "id": "C2.3", "domain": "D2", "name": "Creative Development Opportunities", "definition": { "derivation": "From N1 (Human Flourishing) + N13 (Incentive Alignment)", "requirement": "System enables meaningful contribution beyond mere subsistence. Post-scarcity must value cultural contribution, artistic expression, intellectual development—not just material production.", "rationale": "Maslow’s hierarchy demonstrates humans require more than material security—we seek purpose, mastery, self-actualization. Systems optimized solely for efficiency leave the human spirit impoverished regardless of material abundance.", "measurement": "Clause 1 (regular creative engagement): the share of adults engaging at least weekly in arts, music, writing, crafts, study or invention; no statistical agency publishes this share on a comparable basis, so the clause is aspirational unless the scoring document names a survey that records weekly frequency. Clause 2 (non-subsistence pursuits): average weekly hours of leisure, time outside paid work, unpaid work and personal care, in national time-use surveys (OECD Time Use Database, HETUS, American Time Use Survey). Clause 3 (meaning/purpose): the mean answer on a 0–10 scale to \"Overall, to what extent do you feel that the things you do in your life are worthwhile?\" (EU-SILC well-being module; UK ONS personal well-being), multiplied by 10. For a design, each is projected on the same measure.", "pass_threshold": "≥50% regular creative engagement, average 10+ hours weekly on non-subsistence pursuits, meaning/purpose satisfaction scores ≥70/100", "indicators": "clause 1, aspirational; clause 2, OECD Time Use Database, HETUS, ATUS; clause 3, EU-SILC and ONS \"worthwhile\" item.", "clauses": [ "≥50% regular creative engagement", "average 10+ hours weekly on non-subsistence pursuits", "meaning/purpose satisfaction scores ≥70/100" ] }, "anchors": { "threshold": "≥50% regular creative engagement, average 10+ hours weekly on non-subsistence pursuits, meaning/purpose satisfaction scores ≥70/100.", "note": "", "bands": { "1.0": { "text": "System structurally frees substantial time/resources for non-subsistence pursuits, at or plausibly above the threshold. *Degrowth Economics (1.0): \"Reduced working hours (20-hour week)... explicitly prioritizes creative and social time over productivity.\"*", "examples": [ { "system": "Degrowth Economics", "cited": 1.0 } ] }, "0.5": { "text": "Some engagement, meaningfully constrained by time scarcity or narrow access. *Status Quo Market Capitalism (0.5): \"Only 20-30% engage regularly... time poverty prevents meaningful pursuit.\"*", "examples": [ { "system": "Status Quo Market Capitalism", "cited": 0.5 } ] }, "0.0": { "text": "Structural suppression of creative/cultural activity, typically via state control of cultural production rather than mere time scarcity. *Centrally Planned Socialism (0.0): \"State control of cultural production suppressed creative expression... culture subordinated to political ideology.\"*", "examples": [ { "system": "Centrally Planned Socialism", "cited": 0.0 } ] } } }, "sources": { "definition": "Paper Section 6; restated in v2.0 (NEEC_Criteria_v2_s45.md, Appendix V)", "anchors": "Paper Appendix H.7", "threshold": "Paper Section 6, Pass Threshold, verbatim (decision D28(g))" }, "revision": { "cls": "I", "codes": [ "R3" ] } }, { "id": "C2.4", "domain": "D2", "name": "Democratic Participation", "definition": { "derivation": "From N7 (Governance Legitimacy) + N1 (Human Flourishing)", "requirement": "Genuine citizen voice in governance, not just voting rights. Economic democracy matters as much as political democracy.", "rationale": "Systems concentrating decision-making—whether in state bureaucracies or corporate boardrooms—cannot claim to maximize human autonomy regardless of material outcomes. Democracy requires actual capacity to shape policy and influence outcomes.", "measurement": "Clause 1 (participation): turnout as a share of the voting-age population in national elections (International IDEA Voter Turnout Database), or, where the system takes its binding decisions otherwise, participation in those processes; binding economic-domain decisions (workplace democracy, community asset governance) count. Clause 2 (influence): the share of citizen-initiated proposals (popular initiatives, petitions with a right to a decision, participatory-budgeting proposals) reaching a binding decision that are adopted, from the official record of the process; where no such process exists the clause is not met. This is the one home of the proposal-adoption quantity; C4.4 no longer measures it. Clause 3 (responsiveness): the share answering that the political system allows people like them to have a say in what the government does (OECD Survey on Drivers of Trust in Public Institutions, or the equivalent European Social Survey item). For a design, each is projected on the same measure.", "pass_threshold": "≥70% participation in democratic processes, ≥35% citizen proposals adopted, ≥65% satisfaction with responsiveness", "indicators": "International IDEA Voter Turnout Database; official records of initiative and participatory processes; OECD Trust Survey external-efficacy item.", "clauses": [ "≥70% participation in democratic processes", "≥35% citizen proposals adopted", "≥65% satisfaction with responsiveness" ] }, "anchors": { "threshold": "≥70% participation in democratic processes, ≥35% citizen proposals adopted, ≥65% satisfaction with responsiveness.", "note": "", "bands": { "1.0": { "text": "Structural mechanisms for continuous, substantive citizen influence over both political and economic decisions. *Participatory Economics (1.0): \"Comprehensive economic democracy through nested councils. Everyone participates in planning affecting them.\"*", "examples": [ { "system": "Participatory Economics", "cited": 1.0 } ] }, "0.5": { "text": "Formal democratic rights exist but influence is diluted by concentrated economic power. *Status Quo Market Capitalism (0.5): \"Average citizens have 'near-zero independent impact' (Gilens & Page, 2014).\"*", "examples": [ { "system": "Status Quo Market Capitalism", "cited": 0.5 } ] }, "0.0": { "text": "No meaningful participation mechanism, by design or suppression. *Centrally Planned Socialism (0.0): \"Single-party rule eliminated meaningful democratic participation... political dissent suppressed systematically.\"* *FALC (0.0): \"Governance structures largely unspecified. Who controls the machines?\"*", "examples": [ { "system": "Centrally Planned Socialism", "cited": 0.0 }, { "system": "Fully Automated Luxury Communism", "cited": 0.0 } ] } } }, "sources": { "definition": "Paper Section 6; restated in v2.0 (NEEC_Criteria_v2_s45.md, Appendix V)", "anchors": "Paper Appendix H.7", "threshold": "Paper Section 6, Pass Threshold, verbatim (decision D28(g))" }, "revision": { "cls": "I", "codes": [ "K2", "R3" ] } }, { "id": "C2.5", "domain": "D2", "name": "Exit Rights and Mobility", "definition": { "derivation": "From N9 (Partial Deployability) + N3 (Coercion Minimization)", "requirement": "Participants can opt out without penalty and relocate without losing essential benefits; freedom of association is measured in C2.6.", "rationale": "Systems forcing universal participation become totalitarian regardless of ostensible benefits. Ability to exit, form alternative communities, and organize based on preference rather than necessity represents crucial freedom distinguishing voluntary cooperation from imposed uniformity.", "measurement": "Ease of exit (time and resources required to leave the system). Penalties for non-participation (differential treatment of non-participants). Capacity to leave for alternative arrangements, including forming or joining alternative communities. Geographic mobility (freedom to relocate without losing essential benefits).", "pass_threshold": "Exit feasible within 3 months without material penalty, no differential treatment, geographic mobility maintained", "clauses": [ "Exit feasible within 3 months without material penalty", "no differential treatment", "geographic mobility maintained" ] }, "anchors": { "threshold": "Exit feasible within 3 months without material penalty, no differential treatment, geographic mobility maintained.", "note": "Read carefully: the failure mode is almost always *funding or coherence dependent on near-universal participation*, not an intent to trap individuals. v2.0 (Session 45): this criterion's Pass Threshold was restated (K7; NEEC_Criteria_v2_s45.md). The band texts and examples were written against Paper v1.4's threshold: they describe, and the threshold above governs (protocol 2.3(g)). Examples are re-estimated in the rescoring pass.", "bands": { "1.0": { "text": "Individuals can opt out without penalty and the system continues functioning at partial participation. *CCO-PTF-CIP-SZH (1.0): \"System viable at 30%+ participation, enabling opt-out without penalty... can exit to the traditional market economy while the system continues functioning.\"*", "examples": [ { "system": "CCO-PTF-CIP-SZH", "cited": 1.0 } ] }, "0.5": { "text": "Formal exit rights exist but are constrained by real economic costs (job/healthcare/housing lock-in) not imposed by the system's own design. *Status Quo Market Capitalism (0.5): \"High exit barriers from job mobility costs, healthcare tied to employment, housing market barriers.\"*", "examples": [ { "system": "Status Quo Market Capitalism", "cited": 0.5 } ] }, "0.0": { "text": "The system's own funding or coherence structurally requires near-universal participation, such that a meaningful opt-out rate would collapse it. *Nordic Social Democracy (0.0): \"Systems require near-universal participation for funding sustainability. Cannot function with 30% opt-out; tax base would collapse.\"* *Degrowth Economics (0.0): \"Cannot function if a significant population chooses a high-consumption lifestyle.\"*", "examples": [ { "system": "Nordic Social Democracy", "cited": 0.0 }, { "system": "Degrowth Economics", "cited": 0.0 } ] } } }, "sources": { "definition": "Paper Section 6; restated in v2.0 (NEEC_Criteria_v2_s45.md, Appendix V)", "anchors": "Paper Appendix H.7", "threshold": "Paper Section 6, Pass Threshold, verbatim (decision D28(g)); restated in v2.0 (NEEC_Criteria_v2_s45.md, Appendix V)" }, "revision": { "cls": "D", "codes": [ "K7" ] } }, { "id": "C2.6", "domain": "D2", "name": "Civil Liberties and Rule of Law", "definition": { "derivation": "From N3 (Coercion Minimization) + N7 (Governance Legitimacy and Anti-Capture)", "requirement": "Economic security is not bought with liberty: expression, belief, association, due process, equal treatment under law and personal autonomy, privacy and consent to medical treatment included, are protected in practice; compulsion in the name of health rests on law, is time-limited and is open to independent review; and those who administer the system answer to independent courts.", "rationale": "Domain 2 measures freedom from economic coercion, participation and exit, but not the civil liberties and legal protections those freedoms depend on. The omission matters most where allocation runs through the state or through shared data systems: a system can provide for everyone and still punish dissent, surveil its participants or deny them an independent hearing against its administrators. It is also the dimension on which the corpus's configured national economies differ most from the rest. Bodily integrity belongs to personal autonomy, but none of the fifteen civil-liberties questions of the Freedom House checklist asks about consent to medical treatment or about the limits of compulsion in public health, and a system that allocates care, or conditions benefits on health measures, is where that liberty is most exposed; clauses 2 and 3 measure it.", "distinguishes": "C2.6 from C2.4 and C4.4: participation and the distribution and accountability of power are measured there; C2.6 measures rights held against that power, whoever holds it. The Freedom House civil-liberties checklist is used because it covers exactly this set (expression and belief, associational and organizational rights, rule of law, personal autonomy and individual rights) and leaves out the electoral questions that C2.4 and C4.4 measure. Clauses 2 and 3 cover consent, refusal and the legal form of compulsion; they do not decide entitlement to particular procedures or to treatments not approved (abortion, assisted dying, a right to try), which are contested and on which the criterion takes no side. Restrictions on movement also enter the Freedom House score, through its freedom-of-movement question; clause 3 tests whether compulsion is prescribed by law, limited in time and reviewable, not how much of it there is.", "measurement_protocol": "Clause 1. Configured national economy: the Freedom House civil-liberties score, 0–60, in Freedom in the World for the stated date, cross-checked against V-Dem's Civil Liberties Index; where the two sources disagree about whether the threshold is met, the call is flagged (protocol 6.1), not resolved silently. Design, mechanism or comprehensive system: the fifteen civil-liberties questions of the Freedom House checklist are answered from the system's own sources, 0–4 each, crediting only what the system states and provides for (protocol 4.1): its guarantees, the body that decides disputes between participants and the system's administrators and that body's independence from them, and, where allocation depends on personal data, stated limits on collection, access, use and retention. A mechanism operating inside a wider economy is scored on what it adds to or takes from the liberties of that economy (protocol 3.2). Clauses 2 and 3 are shown from the law in force at the stated date, which the scoring document names. Clause 2: a statute, code or constitutional provision requires the free and informed consent of the person concerned before any medical intervention, or of a lawful representative where the person cannot consent, and protects the right to refuse consent or to withdraw it at any time, as Article 5 of the Council of Europe's Convention on Human Rights and Biomedicine (the Oviedo Convention) states it; the only exceptions are an emergency in which consent cannot be obtained and compulsion that meets clause 3. Clause 3: compulsion is any measure that applies treatment, vaccination, quarantine or isolation to a person without their consent, or that penalizes refusal by a fine, by detention or by loss of employment, schooling or an essential benefit. Every such measure is prescribed by law; is time-limited, lapsing at a stated time unless renewed by a decision itself open to review, so that a standing requirement with no such limit does not meet the clause; and is open to challenge by the person concerned before an independent court or tribunal with power to end it. Where the scoring window contains a public-health emergency, the measures actually taken are read as well: V-Dem's Pandemic Violations of Democratic Standards Index, which codes emergency measures without a time limit, and the Oxford COVID-19 Government Response Tracker for what was imposed. For a design, both clauses are answered from its own sources, crediting only what it states and provides for (protocol 4.1); a mechanism is scored on what it adds to or takes from the protections of the economy it operates in (protocol 3.2).", "pass_threshold": "Civil-liberties score ≥53 of 60 on the Freedom House checklist; informed consent to medical treatment protected in law; any compulsory treatment, vaccination, quarantine or isolation prescribed by law, time-limited and open to independent judicial review", "indicators": "clause 1, Freedom House, Freedom in the World, civil-liberties score (0–60); cross-check, V-Dem Civil Liberties Index; clauses 2 and 3, the law in force, with the Oviedo Convention's Article 5 as the consent standard and, for a public-health emergency, V-Dem's Pandemic Violations of Democratic Standards Index and the Oxford COVID-19 Government Response Tracker.", "clauses": [ "Civil-liberties score ≥53 of 60 on the Freedom House checklist", "informed consent to medical treatment protected in law", "any compulsory treatment, vaccination, quarantine or isolation prescribed by law, time-limited and open to independent judicial review" ] }, "anchors": { "threshold": "Civil-liberties score ≥53 of 60 on the Freedom House checklist; informed consent to medical treatment protected in law; any compulsory treatment, vaccination, quarantine or isolation prescribed by law, time-limited and open to independent judicial review.", "note": "", "bands": { "1.0": { "text": "Score of 53 or more of 60 (the top band of Freedom House's former 1–7 civil-liberties rating), consent to medical treatment protected in law, and every medical or public-health compulsion prescribed by law, time-limited and open to an independent court; or a design whose stated guarantees and independent adjudication answer the checklist at that level and state the same protections, with component evidence where it relies on institutions not yet built.", "examples": [] }, "0.5": { "text": "Score of 17 to 52; or a score of 53 or more with consent or the limits of compulsion not shown; or a design whose guarantees are partial, unstated for some questions, or left to administrators' discretion without an independent hearing, where the gap has a credible pathway to close under the system's own logic.", "examples": [] }, "0.0": { "text": "Score of 16 or less (the two lowest bands of the former rating), or a design that subordinates expression, association, due process or consent to medical treatment to its allocation or administration with no independent adjudication.", "examples": [] } } }, "sources": { "definition": "NEEC_Criteria_v2_s45.md, Appendix V (Package B, decision 45.1; clauses 2 and 3, Package C, decision 46.1)", "anchors": "NEEC_Criteria_v2_s45.md, Appendix V (Package B, decision 45.1; clauses 2 and 3, Package C, decision 46.1)", "threshold": "NEEC_Criteria_v2_s45.md, Appendix V (Package B, decision 45.1; clauses 2 and 3, Package C, decision 46.1)" }, "revision": { "cls": "N", "codes": [ "G2", "C-1" ] } }, { "id": "C3.1", "domain": "D3", "name": "Crisis Response Capacity", "definition": { "derivation": "From N5 (Crisis Robustness) + N10 (Failure Transparency)", "requirement": "Automatic stabilization during economic shocks without requiring legislative intervention. Response time, scaling magnitude, and coverage must be immediate and comprehensive.", "rationale": "Traditional stimulus requires months of political debate while people suffer. Automatic stabilizers scaling with crisis severity—increasing support by 50%+ during downturns without congressional action—represent superior design.", "measurement": "Clause 1 (response time): days from a shock's trigger, the first official data showing it, to the first increased payment, established from the system's rules (automatic triggers, payment frequency) and, for a configured national economy, from the dated record of its response to its most recent major shock (for 2020, the IMF's database of country fiscal measures in response to the COVID-19 pandemic); no legislative delay (automatic activation based on triggers). Clause 2 (scaling): the percentage change in social benefits received by households (national accounts, SNA item D.62) against the percentage fall in real GDP in that shock; a 30% GDP decline requires at least a 30% benefit increase; for a design, from its rules. Clause 3 (coverage): the share of the population covered by at least one social protection cash benefit (ILO World Social Protection Database, SDG indicator 1.3.1).", "pass_threshold": "Response within 72 hours, scaling 1:1 with crisis severity (30% GDP decline = 30% benefit increase), ≥90% population coverage", "comparison": "Traditional stimulus: 3-6 months legislative delay, limited coverage. Unemployment insurance: 2-4 weeks processing, 40% coverage. Automatic stabilizers: Immediate response, universal coverage.", "indicators": "system rules or IMF database of COVID-19 fiscal measures; national accounts D.62 and real GDP; ILO World Social Protection Database (SDG 1.3.1).", "clauses": [ "Response within 72 hours", "scaling 1:1 with crisis severity (30% GDP decline = 30% benefit increase)", "≥90% population coverage" ] }, "anchors": { "threshold": "Response within 72 hours, scaling 1:1 with crisis severity (30% GDP decline = 30% benefit increase), ≥90% population coverage.", "note": "", "bands": { "1.0": { "text": "Automatic, trigger-based stabilization requiring no legislative action. *Universal Basic Income (1.0): \"Benefit continues regardless of employment. No application process, no verification, no delay.\"*", "examples": [ { "system": "Universal Basic Income", "cited": 1.0 } ] }, "0.5": { "text": "Some crisis-responsive capacity exists but is not automatic, is firm/local-level rather than system-wide, or is unproven at the relevant scale. *Market Socialism (0.5): \"Cooperatives demonstrate better crisis resilience than traditional firms... but no automatic macroeconomic stabilizers. Firm-level resilience doesn't translate to system-level response.\"*", "examples": [ { "system": "Market Socialism", "cited": 0.5 } ] }, "0.0": { "text": "Response requires legislative/political action with characteristic multi-month delay, or is ideologically opposed to stabilization mechanisms. *Status Quo Market Capitalism (0.0): \"Traditional stimulus requires 3-6 months of legislative debate while populations suffer.\"* *Libertarian Minarchism (0.0): \"Ideologically opposed to stabilization mechanisms... markets expected to self-correct while populations suffer.\"*", "examples": [ { "system": "Status Quo Market Capitalism", "cited": 0.0 }, { "system": "Libertarian Minarchism", "cited": 0.0 } ] } } }, "sources": { "definition": "Paper Section 6; restated in v2.0 (NEEC_Criteria_v2_s45.md, Appendix V)", "anchors": "Paper Appendix H.7", "threshold": "Paper Section 6, Pass Threshold, verbatim (decision D28(g))" }, "revision": { "cls": "I", "codes": [ "R3" ] } }, { "id": "C3.2", "domain": "D3", "name": "Inflation Control Mechanisms", "definition": { "derivation": "From N5 (Crisis Robustness) + N13 (Incentive Alignment)", "requirement": "Specific, tested mechanisms preventing monetary inflation. Not vague appeals to taxation or abstract productivity claims.", "rationale": "This addresses the primary objection to basic income proposals. Without concrete inflation control mechanisms (sectoral demand isolation, velocity controls, automatic parameter adjustments), material security promises become meaningless as purchasing power erodes.", "measurement": "Long-term inflation rates in system-controlled sectors (must be ≤3% annually). Price stability during stress tests (inflation contained to ≤5% during external 8% inflation scenarios). Parameter responsiveness (automatic adjustment effectiveness when inflation exceeds targets).", "pass_threshold": "Long-term inflation ≤3%, stress test inflation ≤5% (when external 8%), automatic adjustment preventing runaway inflation", "mechanisms_required": "Sectoral demand isolation (basic income for essentials only). Velocity controls (expiration mechanisms preventing hoarding). Supply response (production capacity scaling with demand). Automatic parameter adjustment (rates adjust based on inflation data).", "clauses": [ "Long-term inflation ≤3%", "stress test inflation ≤5% (when external 8%)", "automatic adjustment preventing runaway inflation" ] }, "anchors": { "threshold": "Long-term inflation ≤3%, stress test inflation ≤5% (when external 8%), automatic adjustment preventing runaway inflation.", "note": "", "bands": { "1.0": { "text": "Specific, named mechanism(s) preventing inflation, whether monetary-policy-based or structural (e.g., no money supply to inflate). *Participatory Economics (1.0): \"'Facilitation boards' adjusting indicative prices to balance supply/demand... prevents systemic price instability.\"*", "examples": [ { "system": "Participatory Economics", "cited": 1.0 } ] }, "0.5": { "text": "Relies on conventional monetary policy without novel safeguards, or a proposed mechanism is theoretically plausible but unproven at scale, or the system specifies no inflation-control mechanism of its own and has no active inflationary mechanism (decision D26). *MMT+Job Guarantee (0.5): \"Buffer stock employment theoretically anchors wages and prices. However, the mechanism is unproven at scale.\"*", "examples": [ { "system": "MMT + Job Guarantee", "cited": 0.5 } ] }, "0.0": { "text": "The system's design actively risks compounding inflation, with no counterbalancing design element. Reserve this band for an active inflationary mechanism: a system that specifies no inflation-control mechanism of its own, or has no monetary function, scores 0.5, not 0.0 (decision D26).", "examples": [] } } }, "sources": { "definition": "Paper Section 6", "anchors": "Paper Appendix H.7 (0.0 and 0.5 bands corrected: decision D26 (revision R3); Correction 7's stale count removed from this anchor)", "threshold": "Paper Section 6, Pass Threshold, verbatim (decision D28(g))" }, "revision": { "cls": "U", "codes": [] } }, { "id": "C3.3", "domain": "D3", "name": "Multi-Failure Resistance", "definition": { "derivation": "From N5 (Crisis Robustness) + N10 (Failure Transparency)", "requirement": "Function under simultaneous shocks across economic, environmental, and social domains. Single-shock resilience insufficient.", "rationale": "Climate crisis + automation + recession represents realistic threat landscape. Systems optimized for normal conditions but failing under compound stress cannot sustain long-term flourishing.", "measurement": "Core functions: poverty (the share of the population above the C1.1 poverty line), housing stability (the C1.3 rate), essential-service capacity and democratic-function capacity. Degradation is each function's fall from its pre-shock level, as a share of that level; the Pass Threshold's figures apply to every function in each scenario counted.", "stress_test_scenarios": "Recession + Automation (30% GDP decline, 15% unemployment, 40% business closures). Inflation + Climate Crisis (8% inflation, 30% agricultural disruption, infrastructure damage). Cyber Attack + Economic Crisis (72-hour infrastructure compromise, simultaneous market shock). Pandemic + Supply Chain (health crisis, border closures, 50% disruption).", "pass_threshold": "Maintain core functions across ≥3 of 4 compound scenarios with degradation <20%", "clauses": [ "Maintain core functions across ≥3 of 4 compound scenarios with degradation <20%" ] }, "anchors": { "threshold": "Maintain core functions across ≥3 of 4 compound scenarios with degradation <20%.", "note": "", "bands": { "1.0": { "text": "Explicit design for compound/simultaneous shocks, typically via decentralization or redundancy. *Degrowth Economics (1.0): \"Low-throughput systems less vulnerable to supply disruptions. Localized production creates resilience. Explicitly designed for crisis as norm rather than exception.\"*", "examples": [ { "system": "Degrowth Economics", "cited": 1.0 } ] }, "0.5": { "text": "Some resilience from distributed structure, but interconnection or market competition still transmits shocks. *Market Socialism (0.5): \"No single financial elite to trigger systemic crisis. However, market competition and interconnection still create vulnerability to cascading failures.\"*", "examples": [ { "system": "Market Socialism", "cited": 0.5 } ] }, "0.0": { "text": "Optimized for normal conditions only; historically or structurally demonstrated to fail under compound stress. *Status Quo Market Capitalism (0.0): \"2008 demonstrated vulnerability to financial + economic crisis; COVID showed inability to handle pandemic + supply chain + economic shock simultaneously.\"* *Centrally Planned Socialism (0.0): \"The system ultimately collapsed under compound stresses.\"*", "examples": [ { "system": "Status Quo Market Capitalism", "cited": 0.0 }, { "system": "Centrally Planned Socialism", "cited": 0.0 } ] } } }, "sources": { "definition": "Paper Section 6; restated in v2.0 (NEEC_Criteria_v2_s45.md, Appendix V)", "anchors": "Paper Appendix H.7", "threshold": "Paper Section 6, Pass Threshold, verbatim (decision D28(g))" }, "revision": { "cls": "W", "codes": [ "K6" ] } }, { "id": "C3.4", "domain": "D3", "name": "Epistemic Adaptability", "definition": { "derivation": "From N8 (Epistemic Adaptability) + N7 (Anti-Capture)", "requirement": "System evolves based on evidence rather than ideology. Update rules/parameters based on new information without collapse.", "rationale": "Rigid frameworks unable to incorporate evidence or adjust to changing conditions inevitably ossify. The best system must be dynamically stable—maintaining core functions while adapting implementation details as circumstances change.", "distinguishes": "Stability (maintaining core functions) from rigidity (inability to adapt). Anti-fragile systems improve through stress; fragile systems break; robust systems merely survive. Target: anti-fragile adaptation.", "measurement": "Parameter flexibility (range of adjustable variables without system redesign). Evidence integration (speed of policy updates in response to data). Contestability: those affected by a parameter change can challenge it and have it reversed through a process that does not depend on the officials who made it, whatever governance form the system uses; the criterion does not require a particular form. Stability during transitions (no collapse from parameter adjustments).", "pass_threshold": "≥30% parameter adjustability range, policy updates within 6 months of evidence, changes open to challenge and reversal by those affected, zero collapses during parameter adjustments", "clauses": [ "≥30% parameter adjustability range", "policy updates within 6 months of evidence", "changes open to challenge and reversal by those affected", "zero collapses during parameter adjustments" ] }, "anchors": { "threshold": "≥30% parameter adjustability range, policy updates within 6 months of evidence, changes open to challenge and reversal by those affected, zero collapses during parameter adjustments.", "note": "v2.0 (Session 45): this criterion's Pass Threshold was restated (R4; NEEC_Criteria_v2_s45.md). The band texts and examples were written against Paper v1.4's threshold: they describe, and the threshold above governs (protocol 2.3(g)). Examples are re-estimated in the rescoring pass.", "bands": { "1.0": { "text": "Demonstrated or clearly-designed capacity for rapid, evidence-based parameter adjustment without destabilization. *Market Socialism (1.0): \"Democratic governance enables rapid adaptation to evidence... Mondragon demonstrates 50+ years of continuous adaptation.\"*", "examples": [ { "system": "Market Socialism", "cited": 1.0 } ] }, "0.5": { "text": "Adaptation is possible but slow or politically resisted. *Status Quo Market Capitalism (0.5): \"The system can adjust through policy changes but often slowly and with political resistance... tendency toward regulatory capture and reversal.\"*", "examples": [ { "system": "Status Quo Market Capitalism", "cited": 0.5 } ] }, "0.0": { "text": "Ideological or structural rigidity prevents evidence-based adaptation. *Centrally Planned Socialism (0.0): \"Ideological rigidity prevented evidence-based adaptation... The Lysenko affair.\"* *Libertarian Minarchism (0.0): \"When market failures occur, ideology blames insufficient market purity rather than structural flaws.\"*", "examples": [ { "system": "Centrally Planned Socialism", "cited": 0.0 }, { "system": "Libertarian Minarchism", "cited": 0.0 } ] } } }, "sources": { "definition": "Paper Section 6; restated in v2.0 (NEEC_Criteria_v2_s45.md, Appendix V)", "anchors": "Paper Appendix H.7", "threshold": "Paper Section 6, Pass Threshold, verbatim (decision D28(g)); restated in v2.0 (NEEC_Criteria_v2_s45.md, Appendix V)" }, "revision": { "cls": "M", "codes": [ "R4" ] } }, { "id": "C3.5", "domain": "D3", "name": "Failure-Mode Transparency", "definition": { "derivation": "From N10 (Failure Transparency) + N7 (Anti-Capture)", "requirement": "Failure states legible, diagnosable, and correctable rather than hidden or externalized", "rationale": "Hidden failures enable exploitation and prevent adaptive response. The 2008 financial crisis demonstrated catastrophic hidden failures. Transparent failures enable correction before catastrophe.", "measurement": "Clause 1 (detection) is aspirational: the time from a failure's occurrence to its official identification can be shown from the dated record of the entry's most consequential failure in the scoring window (an official inquiry, audit or evaluation) or, for a design, from its monitoring rule, and the scoring document must name that record. Clause 2 (diagnosis) is aspirational: no agency publishes the share of failures whose cause is established; it can be shown only from a design's documented diagnostic record or an independent evaluation that reports it. Clause 3 (correction): the share of the supreme audit institution's recommendations implemented, as the US Government Accountability Office and other INTOSAI members publish, or for a design its correction record. Clause 4 (externalization): unpriced environmental costs of fuel use as a share of GDP, the implicit subsidies in the IMF's Fossil Fuel Subsidies Data, a lower bound on externalized cost, with GDP standing for total costs; for a design, projected.", "pass_threshold": "Failure detection within 1 week, diagnosis success ≥80%, correction success ≥70%, externalization <10% of total costs", "indicators": "clauses 1–2, aspirational; clause 3, supreme audit institutions' recommendation-implementation rates; clause 4, IMF Fossil Fuel Subsidies Data (implicit subsidies, % of GDP).", "clauses": [ "Failure detection within 1 week", "diagnosis success ≥80%", "correction success ≥70%", "externalization <10% of total costs" ] }, "anchors": { "threshold": "Failure detection within 1 week, diagnosis success ≥80%, correction success ≥70%, externalization <10% of total costs.", "note": "", "bands": { "1.0": { "text": "Systematic, comprehensive monitoring with no major category of cost or failure hidden. *CCO-PTF-CIP-SZH (1.0): \"CCO flows visible through blockchain transparency... CIP provides dashboard tracking system performance across all metrics.\"*", "examples": [ { "system": "CCO-PTF-CIP-SZH", "cited": 1.0 } ] }, "0.5": { "text": "Some failures are visible (often internally, e.g., to firm members) while others (typically ecological or diffuse social costs) remain externalized. *Market Socialism (0.5): \"Worker ownership makes firm failures visible to members immediately. However, market externalities (environmental costs) are still hidden.\"*", "examples": [ { "system": "Market Socialism", "cited": 0.5 } ] }, "0.0": { "text": "Systematic externalization or active suppression of failure information. *Libertarian Minarchism (0.0): \"Market externalities maximally hidden... no mechanism for making systemic failures legible.\"* *Stakeholder Capitalism (0.0): \"ESG metrics susceptible to greenwashing... systemic failures obscured behind public relations.\"*", "examples": [ { "system": "Libertarian Minarchism", "cited": 0.0 }, { "system": "Stakeholder Capitalism", "cited": 0.0 } ] } } }, "sources": { "definition": "Paper Section 6; restated in v2.0 (NEEC_Criteria_v2_s45.md, Appendix V)", "anchors": "Paper Appendix H.7", "threshold": "Paper Section 6, Pass Threshold, verbatim (decision D28(g))" }, "revision": { "cls": "I", "codes": [ "R3" ] } }, { "id": "C3.6", "domain": "D3", "name": "Productive and Innovative Capacity", "definition": { "derivation": "From N13 (Incentive Alignment) + N1 (Human Flourishing)", "requirement": "The system sustains and improves the output its other criteria distribute: productivity does not decline, improvement comes from better methods and not only from more capital, and basic needs are provisioned at the working time the system itself assumes.", "rationale": "Every distributive criterion can be passed on projections that hold output fixed. Whether a system can produce, and improve, what it proposes to distribute, including how it allocates resources when information is dispersed, is the question comparative economics most often puts to alternative systems. The criterion is defined on productivity and provisioning, not on growth of total output, so it builds in no preference against designs that choose shorter hours or lower consumption: a system may produce less in total and pass, provided output per hour does not decline and basic needs are met at its own hours.", "distinguishes": "Labor productivity from total factor productivity: output per hour can rise on capital accumulation alone while methods stagnate, as in the extensive growth of Soviet-type economies, so the second clause tests improvement in methods and allocation. C3.6 from C1.4: C3.6 asks whether output can be produced and improved; C1.4 asks whether security survives when labor is no longer needed to produce it.", "measurement_protocol": "Clause 1: real GDP per hour worked at constant prices (OECD Productivity Database, Penn World Table, Conference Board Total Economy Database), compound annual change over the 20 years to the stated date. Clause 2: total factor productivity at constant national prices (Penn World Table, rtfpna), compound annual change over the same window. Clause 3: the goods and services in the C1.1 poverty basket produced for the whole population at the average working time the system assumes (for a configured economy, its actual hours; for a design, its stated hours), shown by the economy's record or, for a design, by its own accounting of output per hour at those hours with component evidence. For a design, clauses 1 and 2 are scored on its mechanisms for allocating investment and rewarding improvement, calibrated by the record of the components it cites (protocol 4.1); a design that suppresses price or other allocation signals without a stated replacement for them cannot show either.", "pass_threshold": "Real output per hour worked non-declining over 20 years, total factor productivity non-declining over 20 years, basic-needs output sustained at the system's own working time", "indicators": "OECD Productivity Database; Penn World Table 11.0 (rtfpna); Conference Board Total Economy Database.", "clauses": [ "Real output per hour worked non-declining over 20 years", "total factor productivity non-declining over 20 years", "basic-needs output sustained at the system's own working time" ] }, "anchors": { "threshold": "Real output per hour worked non-declining over 20 years, total factor productivity non-declining over 20 years, basic-needs output sustained at the system's own working time.", "note": "", "bands": { "1.0": { "text": "All three clauses shown: productivity and TFP non-declining over 20 years on published data, or, for a design, mechanisms for allocating investment and rewarding improvement whose components have that record, and a provisioning account at its stated hours.", "examples": [] }, "0.5": { "text": "One or more clauses not shown, or shown only by projection resting on untested assumptions, where the system has a functioning allocation mechanism of its own (markets, planning with feedback, or another stated mechanism).", "examples": [] }, "0.0": { "text": "Productivity or TFP declining over 20 years with no credible pathway under the system's own logic, or a design whose own assumptions imply that basic needs cannot be provisioned at its stated hours, or that suppresses allocation signals with no replacement.", "examples": [] } } }, "sources": { "definition": "NEEC_Criteria_v2_s45.md, Appendix V (Package B, decision 45.1)", "anchors": "NEEC_Criteria_v2_s45.md, Appendix V (Package B, decision 45.1)", "threshold": "NEEC_Criteria_v2_s45.md, Appendix V (Package B, decision 45.1)" }, "revision": { "cls": "N", "codes": [ "G1" ] } }, { "id": "C4.1", "domain": "D4", "name": "Intergenerational Justice", "definition": { "derivation": "From N12 (Intergenerational Equity) + N5 (Crisis Robustness)", "requirement": "Preserve resources and opportunities for future generations through fiscal and wealth sustainability: debt-to-GDP below 80% and a positive wealth transfer to the next generation; the ecological transfer is measured in C4.2.", "rationale": "Current systems impose catastrophic costs on the unborn through climate crisis ($500 trillion by 2100), ecological collapse, and debt accumulation ($31 trillion U.S. federal debt). Discounting future welfare represents ethical failure, not economic rationality.", "measurement": "Debt-to-GDP: general government gross debt as a share of GDP (IMF World Economic Outlook database). Intergenerational wealth transfer: net national saving (gross national saving less consumption of fixed capital) as a share of gross national income, positive over the scoring window (national accounts; World Bank World Development Indicators). A design is scored on its projected debt path and net saving. Carbon and resource-regeneration trajectories are measured once, in C4.2.", "pass_threshold": "Debt-to-GDP <80%, positive wealth transfer to next generation", "indicators": "IMF World Economic Outlook, general government gross debt; national accounts net national saving (World Bank WDI).", "clauses": [ "Debt-to-GDP <80%", "positive wealth transfer to next generation" ] }, "anchors": { "threshold": "Debt-to-GDP <80%, positive wealth transfer to next generation.", "note": "v2.0 (Session 45): this criterion's Pass Threshold was restated (K3, K4, K6, R1; NEEC_Criteria_v2_s45.md). The band texts and examples were written against Paper v1.4's threshold: they describe, and the threshold above governs (protocol 2.3(g)). Examples are re-estimated in the rescoring pass.", "bands": { "1.0": { "text": "Preservation or positive transfer is structural, not incidental. *Degrowth Economics (1.0): \"Core principle—preservation for future generations. Absolute reduction in resource extraction and emissions.\"*", "examples": [ { "system": "Degrowth Economics", "cited": 1.0 } ] }, "0.5": { "text": "Some positive transfer exists but is incomplete or coexists with significant negative transfer. *Nordic Social Democracy (0.5): \"Sovereign wealth funds... represent positive intergenerational transfer, but carbon emissions remain above sustainable levels.\"*", "examples": [ { "system": "Nordic Social Democracy", "cited": 0.5 } ] }, "0.0": { "text": "Net negative transfer with no structural counterweight. *Status Quo Market Capitalism (0.0): \"Massive negative intergenerational wealth transfer through climate debt... resource depletion, ecological damage.\"*", "examples": [ { "system": "Status Quo Market Capitalism", "cited": 0.0 } ] } } }, "sources": { "definition": "Paper Section 6; restated in v2.0 (NEEC_Criteria_v2_s45.md, Appendix V)", "anchors": "Paper Appendix H.7", "threshold": "Paper Section 6, Pass Threshold, verbatim (decision D28(g)); restated in v2.0 (NEEC_Criteria_v2_s45.md, Appendix V)" }, "revision": { "cls": "M", "codes": [ "K3", "K4", "K6", "R1" ] } }, { "id": "C4.2", "domain": "D4", "name": "Ecological Compliance", "definition": { "derivation": "From N6 (Ecological Compliance) + N12 (Intergenerational Equity)", "requirement": "Economic activity within ecological carrying capacity, measured on consumption so that emissions and extraction moved abroad are not counted as reductions. Scored as one criterion among the rest; the constraint reading, in which a failure here caps the tier at Partially Adequate, is reported as a named Appendix A.4 scheme.", "rationale": "Planetary boundaries for climate, biodiversity, nitrogen/phosphorus cycles, and land use are being exceeded. Systems requiring perpetual expansion through limits are structurally doomed regardless of temporary success.", "measurement": "Clause 1 (carbon): consumption-based CO2 emissions (Global Carbon Budget national consumption-based accounts), compound annual rate of change over the scoring window; the bar is the rate of a 35% cut over 2019–2030, the low end of the 1.5 °C pathways of the IPCC Sixth Assessment Report (2023) that the Paper cites, and it binds at any date. Clause 2 (biodiversity): the IUCN Red List Index for the economy (SDG indicator 15.5.1), non-declining over the scoring window; for a design, the projected pressure on species and habitat. Clause 3 (resource extraction against regeneration): the ecological footprint of consumption per person no greater than world biocapacity per person (National Ecological Footprint and Biocapacity Accounts, Footprint Data Foundation and York University). Clause 4 (other boundaries): phosphorus, nitrogen, freshwater and land-system change, downscaled to national per-person boundaries and compared with consumption-based footprints (O'Neill et al. 2018; Fanning et al. 2022; goodlife.leeds.ac.uk). Circular-economy metrics (waste reduction, material reuse) are supporting evidence. For a design, each clause is projected on the same measure.", "pass_threshold": "Consumption-based carbon emissions falling ≥3.8% a year, biodiversity neutral or positive, resource extraction ≤ regeneration, no more than two of the four nationally downscaled planetary boundaries transgressed", "indicators": "Global Carbon Budget consumption-based emissions; IUCN Red List Index (SDG 15.5.1); National Ecological Footprint and Biocapacity Accounts; O'Neill et al. (2018) and Fanning et al. (2022) national boundary accounts.", "clauses": [ "Consumption-based carbon emissions falling ≥3.8% a year", "biodiversity neutral or positive", "resource extraction ≤ regeneration", "no more than two of the four nationally downscaled planetary boundaries transgressed" ] }, "anchors": { "threshold": "Consumption-based carbon emissions falling ≥3.8% a year, biodiversity neutral or positive, resource extraction ≤ regeneration, no more than two of the four nationally downscaled planetary boundaries transgressed.", "note": "Hold this one to absolute-reduction standards, not relative/efficiency framing. v2.0 (Session 45): this criterion's Pass Threshold was restated (K3, K4, R1, G3, S2; NEEC_Criteria_v2_s45.md). The band texts and examples were written against Paper v1.4's threshold: they describe, and the threshold above governs (protocol 2.3(g)). Examples are re-estimated in the rescoring pass.", "bands": { "1.0": { "text": "Ecological compliance is a hard design constraint, not an optimization target traded against growth. *Participatory Economics (1.0): \"Planning councils can directly constrain production/consumption within ecological limits... eliminated through comprehensive planning.\"*", "examples": [ { "system": "Participatory Economics", "cited": 1.0 } ] }, "0.5": { "text": "Meaningful mitigation exists but growth or consumption imperatives are not fully subordinated to ecological limits. *Nordic Social Democracy (0.5): \"Leading in renewable energy and environmental policy, but still exceed planetary boundaries.\"*", "examples": [ { "system": "Nordic Social Democracy", "cited": 0.5 } ] }, "0.0": { "text": "Growth-dependent with no absolute-reduction mechanism, or relative/efficiency metrics substituting for absolute ones. *Stakeholder Capitalism (0.0): \"ESG metrics track relative improvements while absolute emissions continue rising... maintain business-as-usual.\"*", "examples": [ { "system": "Stakeholder Capitalism", "cited": 0.0 } ] } } }, "sources": { "definition": "Paper Section 6; restated in v2.0 (NEEC_Criteria_v2_s45.md, Appendix V)", "anchors": "Paper Appendix H.7", "threshold": "Paper Section 6, Pass Threshold, verbatim (decision D28(g)); restated in v2.0 (NEEC_Criteria_v2_s45.md, Appendix V)" }, "revision": { "cls": "M", "codes": [ "K3", "K4", "R1", "G3", "S2" ] } }, { "id": "C4.3", "domain": "D4", "name": "Group Equity", "definition": { "derivation": "From N1 (Human Flourishing) + N7 (Anti-Capture)", "requirement": "Close historical disparities between groups rather than perpetuate them through \"neutral\" policies, on the axes salient in the entry's society (race, ethnicity, gender, caste, religion or citizenship), non-citizen residents included.", "rationale": "Colorblind or gender-neutral policies ignoring structural disparities merely replicate existing hierarchies. True equity requires deliberately disproportionate benefit flows to communities facing disproportionate harms—not as charity but as justice.", "measurement": "Disparity: the gap between the median household income, and wealth where published, of the least and most advantaged groups on each declared axis, as a percentage of the most advantaged group's median, from national household surveys. Axes are declared in the entry's scope declaration (protocol 3.3); non-citizen residents are included in the population measured and counted as a group where citizenship is a salient axis. Reduction is the fall in each gap in percentage points per 5 years; convergence is whether the trend reaches the threshold's level within 30 years. Disproportionate benefit flows are evidence for the trajectory, not a separate test.", "pass_threshold": "Disparity reduction ≥5 percentage points every 5 years, convergence trajectory toward <20% disparities within 30 years, on each declared axis, non-citizen residents included", "evidence_of_need": "Black household median wealth: $24,100 vs $188,200 white (87% gap). Black women 5.56x trafficking vulnerability; Native women 8.75x. Gender wage gap persists: women earn 80-84% of male wages. Systems perpetuating these disparities fail ethical standards.", "indicators": "national household income and wealth surveys, by declared group.", "clauses": [ "Disparity reduction ≥5 percentage points every 5 years", "convergence trajectory toward <20% disparities within 30 years" ], "clause_scope": "on each declared axis, non-citizen residents included" }, "anchors": { "threshold": "Disparity reduction ≥5 percentage points every 5 years, convergence trajectory toward <20% disparities within 30 years, on each declared axis, non-citizen residents included.", "note": "v2.0 (Session 45): this criterion's Pass Threshold was restated (R4, R6, G3; NEEC_Criteria_v2_s45.md). The band texts and examples were written against Paper v1.4's threshold: they describe, and the threshold above governs (protocol 2.3(g)). Examples are re-estimated in the rescoring pass.", "bands": { "1.0": { "text": "Explicit, disproportionate (not merely equal) benefit flows to historically disadvantaged groups. *CCO-PTF-CIP-SZH (1.0): \"PTF deliberately targets disadvantaged communities first (example: 150%+ proportional benefits during rollout).\"*", "examples": [ { "system": "CCO-PTF-CIP-SZH", "cited": 1.0 } ] }, "0.5": { "text": "Formal equality without reparative mechanisms, or genuine effort with unclear/unspecified reach. *Integral (0.5): \"Democratic architecture prevents elite capture... but no explicit reparative mechanisms are discussed... how the system repairs centuries of accumulated disparity\" remains unaddressed.*", "examples": [ { "system": "Integral", "cited": 0.5 } ] }, "0.0": { "text": "Formally neutral policy in a context of large documented disparities, with no active correction. *Status Quo Market Capitalism (0.0): \"'Colorblind' markets replicate structural racism. Without active intervention, discriminatory outcomes persist across generations.\"*", "examples": [ { "system": "Status Quo Market Capitalism", "cited": 0.0 } ], "corrections": [ "Open correction (Handoff 23, Correction 4): Status Quo Market Capitalism's published C4.3 score is 0.5, not 0.0, so this example does not illustrate the 0.0 band. Do not use it as a 0.0 exemplar; the Appendix H.7 anchor is to be corrected in Paper v2.0." ] } } }, "sources": { "definition": "Paper Section 6; restated in v2.0 (NEEC_Criteria_v2_s45.md, Appendix V)", "anchors": "Paper Appendix H.7", "threshold": "Paper Section 6, Pass Threshold, verbatim (decision D28(g)); restated in v2.0 (NEEC_Criteria_v2_s45.md, Appendix V)" }, "revision": { "cls": "M", "codes": [ "R4", "R6", "G3" ] } }, { "id": "C4.4", "domain": "D4", "name": "Power Distribution", "definition": { "derivation": "From N7 (Anti-Capture) + N3 (Coercion Minimization)", "requirement": "Diffuse rather than concentrate decision-making authority across economic, political, and social domains", "rationale": "Monopolization of power—whether by state, capital, or any elite—represents systemic failure regardless of material outcomes. Concentration of wealth ultimately represents concentration of power to shape society according to narrow interests.", "measurement": "Power concentration indices (economic decision-making distribution). Democratic control mechanisms (accountability of major decisions to those they affect). Accountability structures (capacity to remove/replace decision-makers). Wealth concentration and the adoption of citizen proposals are measured once, in C1.2b and C2.4. Clause 1 measures the first two: the major decisions are the investment, production and employment decisions of the organizations in which people work, public bodies included, and a decision is democratically accountable when those it affects take it or elect a majority of those who take it (the organization's workers or members, or, for a public body, the citizens through an authority chosen in free elections). A board a majority of whose members owners of capital elect answers to them, whatever minority the workers elect. The share is the share of employment in organizations whose decisions are accountable in this sense: public administration and public corporations where the authority they answer to is chosen in free elections; cooperatives, mutuals and other member-governed organizations whose workers or members elect a majority of the governing body; and the self-employed, who take their own decisions. Configured national economy: V-Dem's Regimes of the World decides whether the public sector counts (an electoral or liberal democracy at the stated date); general government employment (OECD, Government at a Glance), employment in state-owned enterprises (OECD), self-employment (labour force surveys) and employment in cooperatives, mutuals, associations and foundations (national statistics; the CIRIEC studies for the European Economic and Social Committee) give the share, and where it cannot reach 80% on the most generous count the clause is short. Design, mechanism or comprehensive system: its own sources, for the organizations in which it places the economy's work and to whom their decision-makers answer; a system that coexists with conventional enterprises governed by their owners shows the clause only if its sources state or project that its accountable organizations employ at least 80% of workers. Clause 2 measures the capacity to remove those who take decisions, legislators and executives included.", "pass_threshold": "Democratic accountability for ≥80% of major decisions, removal/replacement mechanisms functional", "indicators": "clause 1, V-Dem Regimes of the World; OECD Government at a Glance (employment in general government); OECD, The Size and Sectoral Distribution of State-Owned Enterprises; labour force surveys (self-employment); national statistics and the CIRIEC/EESC studies of the social economy (employment in cooperatives, mutuals, associations and foundations); for a design, its own sources.", "clauses": [ "Democratic accountability for ≥80% of major decisions", "removal/replacement mechanisms functional" ] }, "anchors": { "threshold": "Democratic accountability for ≥80% of major decisions, removal/replacement mechanisms functional.", "note": "v2.0 (Session 45): this criterion's Pass Threshold was restated (K1, K2; NEEC_Criteria_v2_s45.md). The band texts and examples were written against Paper v1.4's threshold: they describe, and the threshold above governs (protocol 2.3(g)). Examples are re-estimated in the rescoring pass.", "bands": { "1.0": { "text": "Power (economic and political) is structurally diffused, not merely formally distributed. *Participatory Economics (1.0): \"No concentrated wealth, no capital owners, no managerial hierarchy. Participatory councils embody distributed decision-making.\"*", "examples": [ { "system": "Participatory Economics", "cited": 1.0 } ] }, "0.5": { "text": "Some diffusion of one form of power (typically political) while the other (typically economic) remains concentrated, or vice versa. *Libertarian Minarchism (0.5): \"Distributes political power more widely by limiting state scope. However, economic power concentrates massively without checks.\"*", "examples": [ { "system": "Libertarian Minarchism", "cited": 0.5 } ] }, "0.0": { "text": "Concentration in a narrow group, whether market-based or bureaucratic. *Status Quo Market Capitalism (0.0): \"Top 1% owns 32.3% of wealth; political influence is highly concentrated.\"* *Centrally Planned Socialism (0.0): \"Attempted to eliminate the capitalist class but created a new elite (nomenklatura).\"*", "examples": [ { "system": "Status Quo Market Capitalism", "cited": 0.0 }, { "system": "Centrally Planned Socialism", "cited": 0.0 } ] } } }, "sources": { "definition": "Paper Section 6; restated in v2.0 (NEEC_Criteria_v2_s45.md, Appendix V)", "anchors": "Paper Appendix H.7", "threshold": "Paper Section 6, Pass Threshold, verbatim (decision D28(g)); restated in v2.0 (NEEC_Criteria_v2_s45.md, Appendix V)" }, "revision": { "cls": "M", "codes": [ "K1", "K2" ] } }, { "id": "C4.5", "domain": "D4", "name": "Exploitation Elimination", "definition": { "derivation": "From N3 (Coercion Minimization) + N4 (Universal Wealth Access)", "requirement": "Remove extractive relationships, not merely regulate them. Structural transformation, not incremental reform.", "rationale": "Systems maintaining landlord-tenant dynamics ($380,000 extraction over 20 years), employer-employee asymmetries (surplus value extraction), or creditor-debtor subordination (wealth transfer through interest) cannot claim to eliminate exploitation—they merely adjust terms.", "measurement": "Extraction rates (wealth transfer from labor to capital, tenants to landlords, borrowers to lenders). Power asymmetries (capacity to refuse participation without penalty). The share of decisions made under duress is measured once, in C2.1.", "pass_threshold": "Extraction rates <10% GDP, genuine exit rights from exploitative relationships", "clauses": [ "Extraction rates <10% GDP", "genuine exit rights from exploitative relationships" ] }, "anchors": { "threshold": "Extraction rates <10% GDP, genuine exit rights from exploitative relationships.", "note": "v2.0 (Session 45): this criterion's Pass Threshold was restated (K5; NEEC_Criteria_v2_s45.md). The band texts and examples were written against Paper v1.4's threshold: they describe, and the threshold above governs (protocol 2.3(g)). Examples are re-estimated in the rescoring pass.", "bands": { "1.0": { "text": "Structural elimination of extractive relationships (landlord-tenant, employer-employee, creditor-debtor), not merely regulation of their terms. *Participatory Economics (1.0): \"Eliminates capital accumulation and growth imperative driving exploitation... removes profit motive for extraction.\"*", "examples": [ { "system": "Participatory Economics", "cited": 1.0 } ], "corrections": [ "Open correction (found Session 27 by this check): the quoted rationale is Degrowth Economics' published C4.5 text (Report v1.6, System 8, scored 1.0), not Participatory Economics', whose published C4.5 score is 0.0 (a structural failure). Read this band's example as Degrowth Economics (1.0); the Appendix H.7 anchor is to be corrected in Paper v2.0." ] }, "0.5": { "text": "Reduced but not eliminated extraction, or elimination in one relationship type (e.g., capital-labor) while another persists (e.g., inter-firm competition). *Nordic Social Democracy (0.5): \"Reduced exploitation through labor protections, collective bargaining... but still maintains capital-labor relationships with surplus extraction, albeit more equitably distributed.\"*", "examples": [ { "system": "Nordic Social Democracy", "cited": 0.5 } ] }, "0.0": { "text": "Extraction is a structural, load-bearing feature of the system rather than an incidental flaw. *Status Quo Market Capitalism (0.0): \"42% of GDP extracted from labor to capital... exploitation is a structural feature, not aberration.\"*", "examples": [ { "system": "Status Quo Market Capitalism", "cited": 0.0 } ] } } }, "sources": { "definition": "Paper Section 6; restated in v2.0 (NEEC_Criteria_v2_s45.md, Appendix V)", "anchors": "Paper Appendix H.7", "threshold": "Paper Section 6, Pass Threshold, verbatim (decision D28(g)); restated in v2.0 (NEEC_Criteria_v2_s45.md, Appendix V)" }, "revision": { "cls": "D", "codes": [ "K5" ] } }, { "id": "C4.6", "domain": "D4", "name": "Harm Internalization", "definition": { "derivation": "From N13 (Incentive Alignment) + N6 (Ecological Compliance)", "requirement": "Harm to health and to the environment is a cost to whoever causes it, not a source of revenue: the toll of pollution on health does not rise, those who cause harm answer for it to those harmed, and the regulators who should detect it are free of the influence of those they regulate.", "rationale": "No other criterion measures the health burden of pollution, or whether harm is a cost to the one who causes it: healthcare appears only in C2.2's basket of basic needs, and fuel-related pollution only in C3.5's externalization clause. The documented pattern the criterion answers is concealment of known harm to protect product revenue, and capture of the regulators who should detect it, as in the histories of tobacco, leaded fuel, PFAS chemicals and industry-funded nutrition research. Where one owner profits from both a harm and its treatment, the incentive to tolerate the harm is structural. The criterion does not assume that harm is caused deliberately: it tests whether harm is a net cost to whoever causes it, which removes the incentive whatever the ownership.", "distinguishes": "C4.6 from C3.5 and C4.2: C3.5's fourth clause measures the unpriced environmental cost of fuel use as a share of GDP, a price gap, and C4.2 the pressure of consumption on the biosphere; C4.6 measures harm to human health from polluted air and water and from poisoning, whatever its source, and the liability and regulation that make harm a cost to whoever causes it. A system can price fuel fully and still see pollution deaths rise from household fuel or unsafe water, or leave fuel unpriced while those deaths fall. The third clause measures whether regulators are free of the influence of those they regulate; C2.6 measures rights held against the state and the independence of its courts, and C4.4 the accountability of major decisions to those they affect. Health outcomes in general, coverage and financial protection, are not measured; a Health Security criterion is recorded for v2.1.", "measurement_protocol": "Clause 1: the sum of the age-standardized mortality rates per 100,000 population attributed to household and ambient air pollution (SDG 3.9.1), to unsafe water, unsafe sanitation and lack of hygiene (SDG 3.9.2) and to unintentional poisoning (SDG 3.9.3), in the World Health Organization's Global Health Observatory, at the start and at the end of the 20 years to the stated date; the clause is met if the rate at the end is no higher than at the start. Where the SDG series do not span the window, the Global Burden of Disease study's (IHME) age-standardized death rates attributable to air pollution and to unsafe water, sanitation and handwashing, and from unintentional poisonings, are used, cross-checked against the SDG series where both exist; where the two disagree about whether the clause is met, the call is flagged (protocol 6.1). Clause 2 is shown from the law in force and its record, which the scoring document names: those who cause harm to health or to the environment are liable to compensate those harmed and to remedy the damage, under tort, product-liability or environmental-liability law or through a compensation scheme funded by a levy on those who cause the harm, and no immunity leaves a class of harm uncompensated or compensated from public funds alone; those harmed can bring the claim before an independent court, collectively where the harm is dispersed (a class or representative action, or the standing of associations, as Article 9 of the Aarhus Convention provides in environmental matters); and the scoring document names at least one such claim decided against those who caused the harm, and paid, within the scoring window. Clause 3: for a configured national economy, the World Justice Project Rule of Law Index, sub-factor 6.2 (government regulations are applied and enforced without improper influence), in the edition for the stated date, read at the two decimals the Index publishes. Its questions ask whether an environmental authority's notice to a plant polluting a river, or a public-health authority's to a food producer tied to an outbreak, ends in compliance or in the authority being bribed or influenced to ignore it, and how often bribes are paid for permits, licences and public-health and welfare services. The bar, 0.77, is the upper quartile of the 143 jurisdictions' scores in the Index's 2025 edition, fixed as a figure so that later editions do not move it: the Index publishes no bands, and it normalizes its scores against a 2015 base year, so a point on its scale has no meaning of its own. For a design, clause 1 is the projected rate in the economy it is proposed for; clause 2 is its stated provisions; clause 3 is its stated provisions for the bodies that regulate food, water, air, chemicals and medicines, their independence of those they regulate in funding, appointment and the movement of staff, and the disclosure of who funded the evidence they rely on. Only what the design states and provides for is credited (protocol 4.1); a mechanism is scored on what it adds to or takes from the economy it operates in (protocol 3.2).", "pass_threshold": "Mortality attributed to pollution non-increasing over 20 years; those who cause harm to health or the environment liable for it, enforceably by those harmed; regulation of food, water, air, chemicals and medicines applied and enforced without improper influence (for a configured national economy, a World Justice Project sub-factor 6.2 score of 0.77 or more)", "indicators": "clause 1, WHO Global Health Observatory (SDG 3.9.1, 3.9.2 and 3.9.3); IHME Global Burden of Disease, risk-attributable death rates; clause 2, the law in force and the record of claims; clause 3, World Justice Project Rule of Law Index, sub-factor 6.2 (bar 0.77, the upper quartile of its 2025 edition).", "clauses": [ "Mortality attributed to pollution non-increasing over 20 years", "those who cause harm to health or the environment liable for it, enforceably by those harmed", "regulation of food, water, air, chemicals and medicines applied and enforced without improper influence (for a configured national economy, a World Justice Project sub-factor 6.2 score of 0.77 or more)" ] }, "anchors": { "threshold": "Mortality attributed to pollution non-increasing over 20 years; those who cause harm to health or the environment liable for it, enforceably by those harmed; regulation of food, water, air, chemicals and medicines applied and enforced without improper influence (for a configured national economy, a World Justice Project sub-factor 6.2 score of 0.77 or more).", "note": "", "bands": { "1.0": { "text": "All three clauses shown: the pollution mortality rate no higher at the end of the 20 years than at their start; those who cause harm liable for it in the law in force, enforceably by those harmed, with a record of claims paid; and regulation applied without improper influence (for a configured national economy, a score of 0.77 or more on the World Justice Project's sub-factor 6.2); or a design whose stated provisions do the same, with component evidence where it relies on institutions not yet built.", "examples": [] }, "0.5": { "text": "One or more clauses not shown, or shown only by projection resting on untested assumptions, where the system has a functioning mechanism that makes some harm a cost to whoever causes it (liability, a compensation scheme funded by those who cause the harm, pricing, or independent regulation).", "examples": [] }, "0.0": { "text": "No structural mechanism makes harm a cost to whoever causes it (those who cause harm are shielded from liability with no compensation they fund, and its regulation is controlled by those it regulates), or pollution mortality rising over 20 years with no credible pathway to reverse it under the system's own logic.", "examples": [] } } }, "sources": { "definition": "NEEC_Criteria_v2_s45.md, Appendix V (Package C, decision 46.1)", "anchors": "NEEC_Criteria_v2_s45.md, Appendix V (Package C, decision 46.1)", "threshold": "NEEC_Criteria_v2_s45.md, Appendix V (Package C, decision 46.1)" }, "revision": { "cls": "N", "codes": [ "C-2" ] } }, { "id": "C5.1", "domain": "D5", "name": "Proven Component Foundation", "definition": { "derivation": "From N9 (Partial Deployability) + N8 (Epistemic Adaptability)", "requirement": "Build on empirically validated mechanisms, ≥20 years in operation, rather than untested speculation.", "rationale": "Theoretical elegance matters little if implementation repeatedly fails. Best frameworks synthesize proven components from diverse sources rather than proposing entirely novel mechanisms with unknown failure modes.", "measurement": "Component validation (years of successful operation for each mechanism). Scale validation (number of participants in proven implementations). Outcome validation (documented achievement of claimed benefits).", "pass_threshold": "≥70% of system components proven through ≥20 years operation at scale ≥10,000 participants, with documented outcomes matching claimed benefits", "examples_of_proven_components": "Alternative currencies: WIR Bank (90 years operation, billions in annual turnover). Community land trusts: 313 U.S. CLTs, 10x lower foreclosure rates. Sovereign wealth funds: Alaska PFD (40+ years), Norway (271% GDP). Cooperative governance: Mondragón (70+ years, 97% survival rate).", "clauses": [ "≥70% of system components proven through ≥20 years operation at scale ≥10,000 participants", "with documented outcomes matching claimed benefits" ] }, "anchors": { "threshold": "≥70% of system components proven through ≥20 years operation at scale ≥10,000 participants, with documented outcomes matching claimed benefits.", "note": "", "bands": { "1.0": { "text": "Cite specific components with specific track records. *Market Socialism (1.0): \"Mondragon Corporation: 70+ years, 80,000+ worker-owners, €12 billion revenue... 97% survival rate over 5 years vs 44% for traditional startups.\"*", "examples": [ { "system": "Market Socialism", "cited": 1.0 } ] }, "0.5": { "text": "Individual components are proven but the integrated system is not, or the historical precedent's outcomes are mixed/contested. *Integral (0.5): \"Individual components proven: 70%+ of pieces have 20+ years validation... Integrated system unproven: No actual Integral implementation exists at any scale.\"*", "examples": [ { "system": "Integral", "cited": 0.5 } ] }, "0.0": { "text": "No components with a comparable track record exist; the system is a novel projection. *FALC (0.0): \"No comprehensive FALC system exists anywhere... entirely theoretical projection.\"*", "examples": [ { "system": "Fully Automated Luxury Communism", "cited": 0.0 } ] } } }, "sources": { "definition": "Paper Section 6; restated in v2.0 (NEEC_Criteria_v2_s45.md, Appendix V)", "anchors": "Paper Appendix H.7", "threshold": "Paper Section 6, Pass Threshold, verbatim (decision D28(g))" }, "revision": { "cls": "W", "codes": [ "K6" ] } }, { "id": "C5.2", "domain": "D5", "name": "Staged Transition Pathways", "definition": { "derivation": "From N9 (Partial Deployability)", "requirement": "Deployable both gradually in stable contexts and rapidly in crisis contexts, each shown feasible rather than only planned.", "rationale": "Revolutions typically produce chaos, reaction, and systems worse than what they replaced. Gradual transformation enables learning and coalition-building. However, post-crisis contexts demand rapid deployment capacity when political windows open briefly.", "pass_threshold": "Staged (≥4 phases) and rapid (≤36 months) deployment, with specific milestones, resource requirements and risk mitigation, each shown feasible by precedent or component evidence", "staged_transition_10_25_years_for_stable_contexts": "Phase 1 (Years 1-3): Municipal pilots in receptive jurisdictions. Phase 2 (Years 3-5): Regional expansion with integration testing. Phase 3 (Years 5-10): Multi-jurisdictional coordination. Phase 4 (Years 10-25): National integration and optimization.", "rapid_deployment_18_36_months_for_post_crisis_contexts": "Month 0-6: Emergency legal framework, digital infrastructure. Month 6-12: Universal distribution begins, initial asset acquisition. Month 12-18: System activation, governance establishment. Month 18-36: Stabilization, parameter optimization.", "historical_precedents": "New Deal (1933-1936): 3 years for comprehensive programs. Marshall Plan (1948-1951): 3 years for economic restructuring. CCO-PTF modeling: Both pathways validated through simulation.", "clauses": [ "Staged (≥4 phases)", "rapid (≤36 months) deployment", "specific milestones", "resource requirements", "risk mitigation" ], "clause_scope": "each shown feasible by precedent or component evidence" }, "anchors": { "threshold": "Staged (≥4 phases) and rapid (≤36 months) deployment, with specific milestones, resource requirements and risk mitigation, each shown feasible by precedent or component evidence.", "note": "Judge this on specificity, not on whether a pathway exists in principle — \"starts small and expands\" is not a pathway under this threshold, however true it may be. v2.0 (Session 45): this criterion's Pass Threshold was restated (R4; NEEC_Criteria_v2_s45.md). The band texts and examples were written against Paper v1.4's threshold: they describe, and the threshold above governs (protocol 2.3(g)). Examples are re-estimated in the rescoring pass.", "bands": { "1.0": { "text": "Both a multi-phase gradual plan and a rapid crisis-deployment plan are specified with concrete milestones. *CCO-PTF-CIP-SZH (1.0): \"Detailed pathways specified for both gradual (10-25 years: municipal pilots → regional → national) and rapid (18-36 months: post-crisis emergency deployment).\"*", "examples": [ { "system": "CCO-PTF-CIP-SZH", "cited": 1.0 } ] }, "0.5": { "text": "A pathway is sketched but lacks the specificity (legal framework, resource figures, sequencing) the threshold requires. *Market Socialism (0.5): \"Can be implemented incrementally through cooperative development, but scaling to the majority of the economy faces challenges. No clear pathway from niche to dominant form.\"*", "examples": [ { "system": "Market Socialism", "cited": 0.5 } ] }, "0.0": { "text": "No operational pathway despite acknowledging transition as necessary, or historical transitions required non-gradual means (revolution, occupation). *Integral (0.0): \"Despite acknowledging transition as 'the challenge,' the document provides almost no operational pathway... 'starts small and expands' ... That's it.\"* *Centrally Planned Socialism (0.0): \"Historical transitions required revolution, civil war, or imposition by occupying force.\"*", "examples": [ { "system": "Integral", "cited": 0.0 }, { "system": "Centrally Planned Socialism", "cited": 0.0 } ] } } }, "sources": { "definition": "Paper Section 6; restated in v2.0 (NEEC_Criteria_v2_s45.md, Appendix V)", "anchors": "Paper Appendix H.7", "threshold": "Paper Section 6, Pass Threshold, verbatim (decision D28(g)); restated in v2.0 (NEEC_Criteria_v2_s45.md, Appendix V)" }, "revision": { "cls": "M", "codes": [ "R4" ] } }, { "id": "C5.3", "domain": "D5", "name": "Partial and Parallel Deployability", "definition": { "derivation": "From N9 (Partial Deployability)", "requirement": "System functions with selective participation (30%+ population), coexists with traditional markets without displacement", "rationale": "Unlike systems requiring universal enrollment, partial deployability enables pilot testing, iterative improvement, and voluntary adoption. This dramatically reduces political barriers and technical risks.", "measurement": "Minimum participation threshold for viability. Mixed-economy performance (coexistence with traditional institutions). Scaling pathways from pilots (10,000) to regional (1M+) to national (100M+). Inter-jurisdictional coordination protocols.", "pass_threshold": "Viable at ≥30% participation, coexistence with traditional markets maintaining ≥90% economic activity, scaling pathway validated through modeling, coordination protocols established", "clauses": [ "Viable at ≥30% participation", "coexistence with traditional markets maintaining ≥90% economic activity", "scaling pathway validated through modeling", "coordination protocols established" ] }, "anchors": { "threshold": "Viable at ≥30% participation, coexistence with traditional markets maintaining ≥90% economic activity, scaling pathway validated through modeling, coordination protocols established.", "note": "", "bands": { "1.0": { "text": "Explicitly designed to function at partial adoption and coexist with existing institutions. *CCO-PTF-CIP-SZH (1.0): \"Viable at 30%+ participation. Can coexist with traditional markets. Scaling pathway validated through modeling: pilots (10,000) → regional (1M+) → national (100M+).\"*", "examples": [ { "system": "CCO-PTF-CIP-SZH", "cited": 1.0 } ] }, "0.5": { "text": "Components can be adopted piecemeal, but the comprehensive form requires much higher participation to function as designed. *Nordic Social Democracy (0.5): \"Components can be adopted piecemeal... but a comprehensive model requires near-universal participation for funding sustainability.\"*", "examples": [ { "system": "Nordic Social Democracy", "cited": 0.5 } ] }, "0.0": { "text": "The system requires comprehensive, near-total adoption to function at all. *Centrally Planned Socialism (0.0): \"Requires comprehensive control to function. Cannot coexist with market economy without either collapsing... or suppressing markets.\"* *FALC (0.0): \"Cannot function partially—requires comprehensive automation for post-scarcity.\"*", "examples": [ { "system": "Centrally Planned Socialism", "cited": 0.0 }, { "system": "Fully Automated Luxury Communism", "cited": 0.0 } ] } } }, "sources": { "definition": "Paper Section 6", "anchors": "Paper Appendix H.7", "threshold": "Paper Section 6, Pass Threshold, verbatim (decision D28(g))" }, "revision": { "cls": "U", "codes": [] } }, { "id": "C5.4", "domain": "D5", "name": "Political Coalition Potential", "definition": { "derivation": "From N9 (Partial Deployability) + N7 (Anti-Capture)", "requirement": "Build broad support across ideological divides through offering value to diverse constituencies", "rationale": "Solutions appealing only to the left or right face permanent political warfare and likely reversal after the next election party flip. Best frameworks offer value to diverse constituencies: fiscal conservatives (cost savings), libertarians (reduced coercion), progressives (equity focus), communitarians (enhanced cohesion).", "measurement": "Coalition breadth (support percentage across ideological spectrum). Policy stability (resistance to repeal attempts). Long-term political sustainability (survival across multiple administrations).", "pass_threshold": "≥60% support across political spectrum, ≥65% opposition to repeal, survival probability ≥80% across administration changes", "cross_ideological_appeal_examples": "Alaska PFD: 80%+ approval across political spectrum for 40+ years. Community wealth building: Attracts both cooperative socialists and property rights conservatives. Cooperative movements: Bridge socialist and market advocate divisions.", "clauses": [ "≥60% support across political spectrum", "≥65% opposition to repeal", "survival probability ≥80% across administration changes" ] }, "anchors": { "threshold": "≥60% support across political spectrum, ≥65% opposition to repeal, survival probability ≥80% across administration changes.", "note": "", "bands": { "1.0": { "text": "Demonstrated or clearly-arguable appeal across ideologically opposed constituencies, each for their own reasons. *Nordic Social Democracy (1.0): \"High public satisfaction (70-85%) sustains support across the political spectrum.\"* *CCO-PTF-CIP-SZH (1.0): \"Cross-ideological appeal: progressives... libertarians... fiscal conservatives... communitarians.\"*", "examples": [ { "system": "Nordic Social Democracy", "cited": 1.0 }, { "system": "CCO-PTF-CIP-SZH", "cited": 1.0 } ] }, "0.5": { "text": "Appeals strongly to part of the spectrum while facing real resistance from another part. *Market Socialism (0.5): \"Appeals to socialists, progressive liberals, community organizers. However, limited appeal to business interests and fiscal conservatives.\"*", "examples": [ { "system": "Market Socialism", "cited": 0.5 } ] }, "0.0": { "text": "Structural or rhetorical features actively repel broad coalition-building, or historical record forecloses it. *Degrowth Economics (0.0): \"'Degrowth' terminology is politically toxic in growth-oriented cultures.\"* *Centrally Planned Socialism (0.0): \"Catastrophic historical record eliminates political viability.\"*", "examples": [ { "system": "Degrowth Economics", "cited": 0.0 }, { "system": "Centrally Planned Socialism", "cited": 0.0 } ] } } }, "sources": { "definition": "Paper Section 6", "anchors": "Paper Appendix H.7", "threshold": "Paper Section 6, Pass Threshold, verbatim (decision D28(g))" }, "revision": { "cls": "U", "codes": [] } }, { "id": "C5.5", "domain": "D5", "name": "Cultural Adaptability", "definition": { "derivation": "From N14 (Global Scalability)", "requirement": "Function across diverse cultural, economic, and geographic contexts with local parameter adjustment", "rationale": "Universal human needs (security, autonomy, belonging) coexist with enormous diversity in values and preferences. Best frameworks accommodate this tension—providing universal security while enabling local variation in implementation details.", "pass_threshold": "Viable across ≥3 economic contexts (high/middle/low income), ≥5 cultural contexts, parameter flexibility ≥40% adjustment range, successful operation validated across diverse implementations", "parameter_adjustment_examples_high_income_nations": "Octave caps: 7+ (high productive capacity). Basic amounts: 5-8% GDP/capita. Conversion multipliers: 1-9x (sophisticated differentiation).", "middle_income_nations": "Octave caps: 5 (moderate capacity). Basic amounts: 10-15% GDP/capita. Conversion multipliers: 1-7x.", "low_income_nations": "Octave caps: 3 (limited capacity initially). Basic amounts: 15-20% GDP/capita. Conversion multipliers: 1-5x.", "cultural_variation_accommodated": "Aesthetic criteria: Different communities set different phi-rate standards. Governance structures: Consensus, majority, elder councils—all compatible. Social organization: Multigenerational, nuclear, communal—all supported.", "clauses": [ "Viable across ≥3 economic contexts (high/middle/low income)", "≥5 cultural contexts", "parameter flexibility ≥40% adjustment range", "successful operation validated across diverse implementations" ] }, "anchors": { "threshold": "Viable across ≥3 economic contexts (high/middle/low income), ≥5 cultural contexts, parameter flexibility ≥40% adjustment range, successful operation validated across diverse implementations.", "note": "", "bands": { "1.0": { "text": "Explicit parameter adjustment mechanisms for diverse economic/cultural contexts, with reasoning for how they'd apply. *Participatory Economics (1.0): \"Different communities could have different consumption patterns, work structures. Councils respect cultural variation while coordinating economically.\"*", "examples": [ { "system": "Participatory Economics", "cited": 1.0 } ] }, "0.5": { "text": "Some real adaptability, but concentrated in a narrow cultural/economic range, or claimed but underspecified. *CCO-PTF-CIP-SZH (0.5): \"Parameter flexibility enables cultural adaptation... viable across high/middle/low-income contexts with adjustments. However, comprehensive implementation validation is limited to modeling.\"*", "examples": [ { "system": "CCO-PTF-CIP-SZH", "cited": 0.5 } ] }, "0.0": { "text": "Successful only in a narrow cultural context with no credible generalization argument, or requires a specific cultural precondition (e.g., a particular work ethic) the system cannot itself produce. *Market Socialism (0.0): \"Most successful in specific cultural contexts (Basque Country, Northern Italy, Scandinavian regions). Scaling to cultures with different traditions... is uncertain.\"* *Universal Basic Income (0.0): \"Work-centric cultures resist 'paying people to do nothing'... U.S. Protestant work ethic creates resistance.\"*", "examples": [ { "system": "Market Socialism", "cited": 0.0 }, { "system": "Universal Basic Income", "cited": 0.0 } ] } } }, "sources": { "definition": "Paper Section 6", "anchors": "Paper Appendix H.7", "threshold": "Paper Section 6, Pass Threshold, verbatim (decision D28(g))" }, "revision": { "cls": "U", "codes": [] } } ] }