v2.6 — The Perez Pass
v2.6 adds a temporal layer to a thesis whose four-state macro model described the sovereign system’s condition without saying anything about when within an infrastructure buildout that condition was being read. The source is Carlota Perez’s Technological Revolutions and Financial Capital (2002), adopted for exactly one mechanism and quarantined for everything else.
The mechanism
Installation-phase infrastructure is financed by structures that outrun the productive economy’s ability to absorb them. A clearing event — the Turning Point — reprices the installed base, transferring it from weakly financed owners to stronger users at lower capital cost. Deployment then proceeds on the repriced substrate.
That is the whole adoption. No historical periodization is accepted, no “sixth revolution” claim is made, no asset or sector forecast is derived, and no red line, threshold, or falsification condition depends on the frame.
Eight placements
The capital cycle as a cross-cutting clock (§26.2). The four states and the clock interact rather than nest: a Turning Point arriving during State 2 (physical inflation blocking repair) meets a central bank with less freedom to absorb it than one arriving during State 1. The two frameworks make the same demand of the reader — the destination is not the next observation.
How the transition window closes (§26.1). The bridge-then-destination picture’s unstated assumption — an orderly handoff — is the historically unusual case. The demand base the triad’s fee instruments measure is disproportionately a post-repricing phenomenon, so the clearing event arrives before the fee base it eventually feeds. Which is why the gates are metric-anchored and Gate 6 tests through stress.
Financial deflation as a second channel (§14.3.1, §19). Technological deflation is gradual unit-cost decline with stable utilization; financial repricing is a step-change in the price of installed capacity with utilization resetting. Observationally distinct, same effect on the volume-over-deflation bet — and capable of moving a quarter’s reading by more than a year of Moore’s law.
The fee base is a deployment-phase quantity (§26.3). Phase III fee coverage is not a smooth path from Phase II. It is a quantity that plausibly becomes measurable only on the far side of a financial clearing event the thesis does not predict and cannot time. A re-timing of the gate, not a relaxation: the 30% threshold is unchanged, and the regression gate still fires on the same observable. Condition B of Red Line 14 is named as the trip wire for the opposite reading — the clearing event came and went and the fee base did not arrive.
The rescue-born pathway to State 4 (§29.9). The closed-stack comparison treated State 4 as a policy choice. There is a second, historically better-attested pathway: the state does not choose coordination, it inherits it — as residual claimant on distressed strategic assets after the clearing event. This shortens the timeline, changes the binding constraint from optimizing mandate to inherited mandate, and identifies the exact juncture at which the thesis’s two adversaries become one: the market-realization plane’s clearing event is the closed stack’s acquisition opportunity, with the triple divergence (WNG, convenience-yield telemetry, Homestead Ratio) already specified as the readable warning.
Plus a Sources entry with the full scope note, two glossary entries, and this release record.
What did not change
No new claims. No thresholds moved. No red lines relaxed. Every \cref target and label survives. The page count moves 404 → 407.
The canonical edition is /pdf/next-gen-sov-v2.6.pdf; the author-maintained brief is /pdf/afterfiat-brief-v2.6.pdf.