Appendix J. What Changed Across Releases

Jason St George. "Appendix J. What Changed Across Releases" in Next Generation Stores of Value: Privacy, Proofs, Compute. Version v3.2. /v/3.2/read/appendix/j-release-history/

What Changed Across Releases

This appendix records what each version added, in the words used when it was added. It is release history, not argument: nothing here is required to read the thesis, and no claim depends on it. It is kept because a document that revises itself in public should say what it revised.

v1.2 additions: Layer 0 now includes Facility Capacity Receipts (§14: Layer 0: Verifiable Machines & Energy) and Physical VerifyPrice (§19: Layer 4: Truth & Work); Layer 6 telemetry now includes the Wrapper Dominance Board and Agency Preservation Board (§23: Extended Telemetry). A new political-economy thread runs through Part I: the Treasury Market as Control Panel (§2: The World Forces New Monetary Primitives), the Participation Line (§2: The World Forces New Monetary Primitives), Administrative Repression (§4: Threat Model), and AI Homestead vs. Enclosure (§4: Threat Model), culminating in a ninth SoV requirement, agency preservation (§3: First Principles: What a SoV Must Survive), and the closing frame Equip, Don’t Manage (§33: Conclusion: A Bell Labs for Privacy, Proofs, and Compute).

v1.3 additions: A thread that runs around the stack rather than through it. The Market Realization Plane (§10: Work Credits: Energy-Anchored Claims) models how external financial wrappers—ETFs, treasury companies, custodians, derivatives, dealers, and systematic allocation rules—represent claims on the native asset, and Corollary §10: Work Credits: Energy-Anchored Claims establishes that price appreciation and monetary adoption imply each other in neither direction. This adds a fourth verification family, VerifyFlow (§23: Extended Telemetry), a corresponding public board, a compositional adversary class that requires no hostile actor (§4: Threat Model), a third boundary tension between institutional holdability and native monetary function (§4: Threat Model), a split of allocator adoption into native (Phase II-A) and wrapper-led (Phase II-B) paths, Market Realization Warnings distinct from monetary red lines (§27: Risk Analysis & Failure Modes), and the formal flow model in Appendix H: Formal Model of Market Realization, Wrapper Flows, and Price Capture. Readers who want only the conceptual payload can read §10: Work Credits: Energy-Anchored Claims and §33: Conclusion: A Bell Labs for Privacy, Proofs, and Compute and skip the appendix entirely.

v1.4 additions: A thread that runs beneath the stack. Where v1.3 asked who captures the value, v1.4 asks what the substrate depends on. Layer 0 already instrumented physical fragility; it did not argue it. Three additions close that gap. Energy & Physical Interdiction (§4: Threat Model) adds an adversary class that raises the cost of verification without prohibiting anything—curtailment, tariff discrimination, interconnection denial, load prioritization—and separates the verification-side exposure (reference-hardware obtainability) from the proving-side exposure (bulk power), which behave differently and are routinely conflated. Sovereign Optionality (§14: Layer 0: Verifiable Machines & Energy) aggregates existing Facility Capacity Receipt fields into a single published exposure, feeding risk haircuts so that issuance discipline extends from “we cannot see this facility” to “we can see it clearly and it is fragile.” Red Line 13 makes the dependency falsifiable: Physical VerifyPrice SLOs are exogenous to token price, as claimed, but not to the conditions under which power and hardware are obtainable—which means the hinge is externally triggerable, and should be monitored upstream rather than discovered at the hinge. §14: Layer 0: Verifiable Machines & Energy resolves the resulting tension between demanding cheap verification and expensive redundancy via disruption-adjusted VerifyPrice, with resilience explicitly subordinate to the affordability hinge. Finally, §29: The Closed Sovereign Stack adds the case the thesis previously argued only in the abstract: a state-scale closed sovereign stack that validates the Layer 0 premise while inverting who ends up sovereign, plus three objections it provokes (§30: Objections & Responses, §30: Objections & Responses).

v1.5 additions: No new claims—this version makes the existing argument findable and harder to misread. An audit found that the thesis had accumulated excellent parts that the reader was left to assemble alone, so v1.5 adds a spine rather than a thread. The seven premises that had lived only on the project site are now stated in the document (§0: Introduction), and §6: The Triad and the Monetary Candidate walks the full conditional chain in one place: each of the seven links, where it is defended, and the condition that would sever it—closing with §6: The Triad and the Monetary Candidate, which rates our own argument link by link and marks two links medium (six as of v3.0) rather than claiming uniform confidence. §0: Introduction opens with reading paths so an allocator, a builder, or a skeptic can skip the cultural preamble and go straight to the load-bearing material. The Abstract and Executive Memo now say plainly what was previously implicit: that the hinge is externally triggerable, and that the competitor to an open stack is a competent closed one rather than fiat. §30: Objections & Responses is regrouped from a flat list into monetary, infrastructure, political, and market-structure blocks, so the strongest objection is no longer the twelfth item in an arbitrary sequence. §21: The Modular Stack maps each reference application to the layers it exercises, the boards it reports to, and the red lines it would trip—which incidentally shows that shipping applications cannot catch Red Lines 4 and 8. §13: SoV Evaluation Framework gains a physical-sovereignty question kept deliberately separate from the legibility question, because a facility can be perfectly transparent about being fragile. §10: Work Credits: Energy-Anchored Claims now walks all nine SoV requirements rather than the first seven, since the two it omitted—non-bypassability and agency preservation—are the two a merely useful capacity token would fail.

v1.6 additions: A dependency the thesis had described but not named. Where v1.4 asked what the substrate depends on, v1.6 asks what the incumbent order depends on—and finds a reflexive circuit rather than a hierarchy. The collateralized sovereign stack (§2: The World Forces New Monetary Primitives) is the diagnosis: a state’s effective fiscal capacity now depends on the market value of the asset complexes it regulates, so asset prices, receipts, fiscal room, and Treasury functioning support each other recursively and fail together. §2: The World Forces New Monetary Primitives identifies who actually clears the paper—leveraged, basis-sensitive intermediaries rather than patient foreign reserve managers—and separates sovereign credit safety from collateral stability, which are routinely conflated and behave differently under stress. §4: Threat Model adds a fourth adversary class, enclosure by rescue: a state need not seize a firm it can simply protect, once that firm has become fiscally load-bearing. §10: Work Credits: Energy-Anchored Claims extends the Market Realization Plane with numeraire-dependence, since a measured price path is jointly determined by the asset and the unit it is measured in. §29: The Closed Sovereign Stack reports that the doctrine of §29: The Closed Sovereign Stack is now arriving in the West as well, so the thesis faces two state-key stacks rather than one, and §29: The Closed Sovereign Stack separates open weights from open sovereignty—released weights confer neither independent power, hardware, data, communications, privacy, nor settlement. Material that could not be verified to the standard the body requires is quarantined in Appendix I: Scenario Analysis: The Collateral Loop Under Stress, which is labelled non-load-bearing and lists what was excluded and why. Nothing was renumbered: Layers 0–6 are unchanged, and no red line or value-capture condition depends on any macro claim added here.

v1.7 additions — the fee-level argument and a relocated monetary claim. This entry and the one that follows it record subtractions rather than additions, and both landed after the v1.6 artifact was frozen—a reader checking the v1.6 PDF will not find them there. The §10: Work Credits: Energy-Anchored Claims’s five conditions all govern where fees go; none governs how large they can be. §10: Work Credits: Energy-Anchored Claims closes that gap and does not like all of the answer. A protocol fee is a wedge on turnover rather than a claim on residual profit, so a contestable market can be taxed and operator margin compression is irrelevant to fee revenue—but the sustainable fee is bounded by the marginal buyer’s willingness to pay for the protocol’s differential properties, net of the fact that verified compute costs more to produce, and that willingness is probably thin wherever a creditworthy, suable indemnitor substitutes for a proof. Bypass is accordingly a magnitude rather than a binary, and two bypass channels were not being counted: partial bypass at the intensive margin, and a fork of the protocol with a lower fee and no burn. The consequence is that fees, burns, and collateral establish a competitively priced cash-flow claim and a balance-sheet floor—both discounted-cash-flow quantities—and not a monetary premium. §10: Work Credits: Energy-Anchored Claims relocates the monetary claim to the state-contingency of that differential value, separating two mechanisms that had been run together: the countercyclicality of the fee stream, which is a negative-beta discount-rate effect a discounted-cash-flow valuation captures exactly and which is therefore conceded to confer no moneyness; and a holder-side service flow, which is not a distribution at all and so has no stream to discount. The second is where the monetary claim now lives. It is then discounted honestly: the states where the hedge is most valuable are the states where the protocol’s ability to supply is most impaired. The mechanism is standard; its magnitude is unsized and is presented as unsized. §10: Work Credits: Energy-Anchored Claims shows collateral is unit-elastic in price, bounded by an accounting identity to large-cap-equity magnitudes, and subject to wrong-way risk no red line previously covered. Two chain-strength self-ratings were reduced accordingly (§6: The Triad and the Monetary Candidate), and Red Line 14 makes the fee-level question falsifiable, bringing the published count to fourteen.

Also in v1.7 — the Bitcoin objection, and a correction to how this document talked about proof-of-work. The objections chapter answered gold and did not answer Bitcoin, which for a store-of-value thesis is the more consequential omission. §30: Objections & Responses now opens the monetary block and concedes more than is comfortable: Bitcoin already satisfies the requirements set out here, on a fifteen-year record, through a work function with no external buyer — and that absent buyer is the source of its objectivity, not an inefficiency. Proof-of-useful-work weakens it. The thesis’s actual claim is narrower than earlier drafts implied: not that a better money is available, but that Bitcoin does not by itself supply portable attestation or verified compute, that these are separate goods with separate demand, and that whether they carry monetary premium or price as services is open and measurable. Passages in Parts I, II, III, V, and VI that described SHA-256 work as “waste” or “heat” have been rewritten to state the trade honestly—monetary objectivity exchanged for capacity relevance—and a succession framing running from Part I to the conclusion has been made non-hierarchical, since the thesis claims a different function rather than a later stage. What losing to Bitcoin would look like is specified as Service-Good Realization (§27: Risk Analysis & Failure Modes), and is deliberately filed as a market realization warning rather than a fifteenth red line: its price-comparative clause cannot be a red line without breaking §10: Work Credits: Energy-Anchored Claims. The count stays at fourteen.

v1.8 additions — duration of the claim, duration of the project. A completeness amendment, not an architectural one. Layers 0–6 are not renumbered. §2: The World Forces New Monetary Primitives distinguishes duration of the claim from duration of the project: a repression-resistant store of value must remain duration-neutral, while civilization still requires a duration warehouse capable of holding the construction interval of plants, grids, and data centers. The two must not be the same instrument. §2: The World Forces New Monetary Primitives extends the residual-buyer account from leveraged intermediaries to automatic index flows that absorb less DV01 per dollar after a selloff. §29: The Closed Sovereign Stack names China’s directed banks as a duration warehouse and the Western bill-heavy book as sovereign maturity transformation. VerifyFlow gains a buyer-quality checklist, not a scalar index (§23: Extended Telemetry). A new objection, §30: Objections & Responses, concedes that neutral money does not finance the reactor and refuses to let proofs, Work Credits, or the native asset become a coupon by another name. Tactical bond-market claims are quarantined in Appendix I: Scenario Analysis: The Collateral Loop Under Stress.

v1.9 additions — deliverable service, monetary risk absorption, and architectural agnosticism. The core claim is narrowed: a bearer base asset may earn monetary premium only where the full service path remains stress-deliverable, native demand cannot bypass it, a persistent self-custodied loss-bearing constituency absorbs residual risk, and project credit remains separate. The steel-man expands to ten premises and the conditional chain to nine links. §6: The Triad and the Monetary Candidate adds the Topological Scarcity Lemma, the inverted-U Pressure–Capacity Corridor, and the Triad Coherence Test comparing one-token, neutral-reserve-plus-credit, and shared-settlement-plus-modular-collateral designs. §14: Layer 0: Verifiable Machines & Energy restores conversion throughput through scenario max-flow/min-cut, substitution latency, and common-cause dependency analysis; issuance is bounded by stress-adjusted DVC rather than nameplate capacity. §23: Extended Telemetry moves buyer quality into the monetary chain, while the public boards add common-cause and sponsor dependencies. §26: Adoption Curve & Ecosystem Dynamics separates four policy states without turning them into tactical forecasts. §27: Risk Analysis & Failure Modes compares three collateral models, and Red Line 15 makes the native collateral–capacity spiral measurable. §30: Objections & Responses specifies explicit proof-audited project credit with a constitutional prohibition on transferring par, redemption, or emergency-support promises to the base asset. Work Credits are reclassified as typed service claims; FCR, FER, and PIDL artifacts as evidence; project notes as duration-bearing credit; and LP/staking positions as derivatives or operating claims.

v2.0 — the assessment pass. No new claims: this version makes the v1.9 text agree with its own falsifiability standards. A systematic adversarial review resolved five internal contradictions. Gold-tier sampling coverage is counted in production lots at tier minimum rates, with the rule-of-three converse stated (§14: Layer 0: Verifiable Machines & Energy). A maturity gate blocks Tier A (pristine-collateral) issuance while any PoUW verification component is Experimental or Pilot—currently binding on every PoUW workload (§19: Layer 4: Truth & Work). The absolute $\varepsilon = 10^{-5}$ bound on FP32 matmul verification is replaced by a scaled relative bound with a pinned reference kernel, and “transcript determinism” is restated as pinned-kernel reproducibility (§19: Layer 4: Truth & Work). The Red Line 8 emergency path is reconciled as subtractive-only, with routine use of subtractive powers tripping the red line and signer accountability specified (§22: Layer 6: Governance & Telemetry). Naive demand-to-price passages in Part II are explicitly marked as routing rules rather than findings, with the refutation cross-referenced where it lands (§10: Work Credits: Energy-Anchored Claims). Four analytical gaps are given measurement machinery: a fifth measurement family, convenience-yield telemetry, prices the holder-side service flow through base-asset lending rates, forward and perpetual basis, and wrapper basis (§23: Extended Telemetry); the joint failure mode—closed-stack services plus wrapper price realization leaving the asset a reference price with no native loop—is named with a triple-divergence diagnostic (§29: The Closed Sovereign Stack); stablecoins are engaged as the incumbent bypass channel (§10: Work Credits: Energy-Anchored Claims); and the utility-token record is cited against the thesis, with the 30% fee-coverage gate labeled an order of magnitude above the precedents (§30: Objections & Responses). Legal posture is narrowed: a securities-law analysis confronts the Howey structure [SEC v. Howey 1946] of the value-capture design itself (§24: Legal, Policy, and Jurisdictional Posture), and the AML table is reframed as requiring legislative change rather than as a boundary regulators must respect, with the Tornado Cash precedent added to defense-in-depth (§24: Legal, Policy, and Jurisdictional Posture). Verification expectations are aligned with engineering reality: INFER_LM_70B is re-tiered to aspirational with no Sev-1 threshold until ZKML maturity lifts the gate, and Phase I expects INFER_LM_7B (§26: Adoption Curve & Ecosystem Dynamics). The penultimate chapter is retitled “Why These Could Become Money,” and the base-rate problem is stated: no asset in monetary history is known to have crossed from utility cash-flow claim to monetary premium (§31: Why a Base Asset Behind These Could Become Money). Prior-art acknowledgments are added for Layers 0–2 (TUF [TUF 2011–]/Uptane [Kuppusamy et al. 2016], Certificate Transparency [Laurie et al. 2013], OONI [OONI 2012–], Tor/I2P [Dingledine et al. 2004], BIP-324 [Mehta et al. 2023], BOLT12 [NoBS Bitcoin 2024b], energy resource-adequacy literature [NERC annual]) with matching Sources entries. The simultaneity problem in elasticity estimation—wrapper and index flows moving NAV—is addressed in the VerifyFlow Measurement Contract (Appendix H: Formal Model of Market Realization, Wrapper Flows, and Price Capture). No red line was relaxed, no threshold was moved, and no falsification condition was withdrawn.

v2.1 — the McLuhan pass. No new claims: this version adds a framing layer, not evidence. The thesis’s arguments are placed in the lineage of media-transition theory ([McLuhan 1962]; [McLuhan 1964]; [Eisenstein 1979]; [Ong 1982]; [Anderson 1983]), with every use explicitly bounded as mechanism rather than measurement. Eight placements, none load-bearing. The Executive Memo gains a closing paragraph explaining why the thesis instruments rather than forecasts: every prior restructuring of the information substrate arrived as an externality of adoption, and the consequences were nobody’s plan. §1: The Failure of Soft Guarantees adds a prior-transitions passage to §1: The Failure of Soft Guarantees: manuscript trust anchored in persons, print in artifacts, broadcast in institutions, and the networked era arriving with no native anchor at all—the slot this thesis proposes to fill with proof. §7: Privacy as Private Money gains an interiority paragraph: the private self as a print externality (Ong), which reframes surveillance as the withdrawal of a centuries-old subsidy rather than the violation of a natural constant. §2: The World Forces New Monetary Primitives opens with the topology observation: truth and value move on the same topology, and both are moving from broadcast ($1 \to N$) to network ($N \leftrightarrow N$); the state as typesetter of uniform value belongs here. The canonical-workload discussion (§19: Layer 4: Truth & Work) names its precedent: typographic standardization preceded and enabled interchangeable parts (Eisenstein), with the necessity claim explicitly not adopted. The Wrapper Dominance Ratio (§10: Work Credits: Energy-Anchored Claims) gains a reading rule: first-generation use of a new medium wears the old medium’s form, so a rising WDR measures a phase, and the failure gate exists because the frame does not promise completion. §31: Why a Base Asset Behind These Could Become Money tacks two sentences onto the base-rate paragraph: a printed scroll is still a scroll; the precedents shipped content without structure, which is why the base rate is empty and why the empty base rate is not dispositive—and the reading earns nothing, because the chain still has to prove itself in telemetry. The VerifyPrice SLO sidebar (§19: Layer 4: Truth & Work) gains the habituation argument: if a medium restructures only those who habituate to it, verification must be cheap enough to become a habit before it can become anything else, which is why the exogeneity requirement is the precondition of the medium having any effect at all. Six Sources entries are added with scope notes stating what each is and is not cited for; the “we shape our tools” line is attributed to Culkin (1967), not McLuhan. No red line was relaxed, no threshold was moved, no falsification condition was withdrawn, and no claim of the thesis now depends on the frame.

v2.2 — the instrument-hardening pass. No new claims: this version makes the two flagship measurement families agree with the standards the rest of the thesis already holds itself to. An audit of VerifyPrice and VerifyFlow found the core derivations sound—every equation of Appendix H: Formal Model of Market Realization, Wrapper Flows, and Price Capture re-derives and the recycling boundary verifies numerically—but the aggregation and specification layer behind them had ten defects, now fixed. Aggregation: the asset-level vector’s $Q^{\text{exp}} = Q^{RC} + Q^{RD}$ double-counted the $\varepsilon$-driven creation flow, which sits inside $\kappa$ in $Q^{RC}$ and again inside raw net creation in $Q^{RD}$; $Q^{RD}$ now consumes only the intercept component, per the decomposition rule Appendix H: Formal Model of Market Realization, Wrapper Flows, and Price Capture already stated but the vector violated, with the regression residual published as its own series and consumed by no aggregate (§23: Extended Telemetry). The Wrapper–Native Growth Gap, which feeds the triple-divergence composite and Red Line 9, gains the aggregation specification and deflation adjustment its adjacent Red Line 14 quantity already carried; an unadjusted WNG can rise on a valuation artifact alone (§23: Extended Telemetry). The Mechanical Pressure Ratio now publishes gross and net forms, mirroring the Wrapper Dominance Ratio’s stock/flow split (§23: Extended Telemetry). Domain: the Wrapper Recycling Ratio is undefined at $L = 1$—the unlevered wrapper class most likely to dominate this asset—so the $\kappa$–WRR identity is stated, the $L{=}1$ publication rule fixed (publish $\varepsilon$; never a WRR column), and a wrapper-class applicability map added so classes without shares and NAV (perpetual futures above all) get named substitute constructions instead of fabricated readings (Appendix H: Formal Model of Market Realization, Wrapper Flows, and Price Capture). Anti-gaming: the $r(W)$ production denominator gains the measurement contract its numerator always had—reference cost models, pinned like the reference kernel, independently estimated—because a prover inflating production cost drives the ratio down and the network looks more verification-asymmetric than it is (Appendix A: Formal Model of Verification Asymmetry & VerifyPrice). Estimation: the OLS-as-upper-bound rule for flow elasticity was conditional, not absolute: for a stale-priced underlying, errors-in-variables attenuation biases the estimate downward, and an attenuated OLS value bounds nothing; a staleness diagnostic is now published alongside, and where staleness is material the reading is published as unidentified (Appendix H: Formal Model of Market Realization, Wrapper Flows, and Price Capture). Specification: VerifyPrice carried three tuple definitions across four sites; Appendix A: Formal Model of Verification Asymmetry & VerifyPrice now states the canonical five-field form and demotes the others to views of it. $\text{VerifyPower}$ took the reciprocal of a vector; it is now a scalar on a pinned reference workload. $\text{VerifyPrice}_{\text{adj}}$ is annotated as a convenience summary no red line reads on, with the per-state vector load-bearing, because an expectation averages away the tail that resilience lives in (§14: Layer 0: Verifiable Machines & Energy). The AffordabilityRatio’s perverse direction—improving when fees rise—is named, with denominator floors and a USD-referenced settlement variant (§19: Layer 4: Truth & Work). Every fix tightens an instrument; none relaxes one. No red line was relaxed, no threshold was moved, and no falsification condition was withdrawn.

v2.3 — the coherence pass. No new claims: a systematic audit of self-coherence, local coherence, and global coherence produced 125 severity-ranked findings, all remediated. Two mathematical errors: the USD price model multiplied Joules directly by a USD/kWh price — a dimensional error overstating the energy term by $3.6\times10^{6}$ — now derived per run with the explicit conversion and cost percentiles computed as percentiles of per-run cost, never recomputed from percentile inputs (§19: Layer 4: Truth & Work); and the WNG revaluation artifact was stated backwards — the phantom arises on a price rise (wrapper exposure is a stock revalued with every tick; native use accumulates at transaction prices), now stripped by unit-denominated aggregation (§23: Extended Telemetry). Conventions pinned once: $Q^{RD}$ owns the intercept $\alpha$ only, with the regression residual published as its own series and consumed by no aggregate; the take-rate $\tau$ uses gross fees while FeeCoverage uses retained fees, dissolving every fee-plus-burn ratio and retiring the label; the WDR is a pair and Red Line 9 requires both components to rise; two distinct deflators — WNG unit-denomination versus Red Line 14-B’s workload unit-price index — are named and kept separate. Red lines: RL14-B gains persistence and a named deflator; RL11/RL13 thresholds instantiated where “e.g.” placeholders stood; RL15’s clauses labeled conjunctive; severity labels (“kills” vs. “weakens”) defined; response-protocol clocks given pinned start triggers and a no-reset rule. Instruments: VerifyPower carries the token price explicitly ($q_{\text{fee}} \cdot P_X / p_{50,c}$); the AffordabilityRatio’s undefined “floor” replaced by three concrete guards; the Part III decision rule gates on the worst disruption state’s per-state bound with the $\pi$-weighted average demoted to tie-breaker; the canonical tuple reconciled across all five sites. Roughly forty definitional repairs across Parts I–VI, the appendices, and the executive memo, including the Value Capture Lemma’s failure clause (no monetary premium, not no value at all), the Work-Credit supply identity, the $\theta_t$ double-count, the $\varphi_t$ false equivalence, and the base-rate defense restated in its honest two-move form. No red line was relaxed, no threshold was moved, and no falsification condition was withdrawn; several conditions became checkable that previously were not.

v2.4 — the household-transmission pass. New claims, all bounded: this version adds the household layer to a thesis whose adversaries had been exclusively sovereign and financial. The source is Green’s “The Vibecession Was Real” [Green 2026e] (Sources), adopted for mechanism and quarantined for quantities, simulations, and psychology. The social contract as a failing soft guarantee: the behavioral promise that discipline converts into advancement — honored contract by contract while failing in aggregate, because the incumbent’s balance-sheet wealth is the entrant’s acquisition price — is added to §1: The Failure of Soft Guarantees as a trust failure that survives audit. The exhaustion gradient: the participation line (§2: The World Forces New Monetary Primitives) gains its approach path — formally inside the system while progressively less able to accumulate — with the observation that dollar-weighted aggregates lag person-weighted depletion until a delinquency threshold is crossed. Capability versus formal access: the ninth SoV requirement (§3: First Principles: What a SoV Must Survive) gains its second layer: a valid balance is not command over the necessities of an independent life, and a ledger can supply the first while failing the second. Representation discipline: every board aggregate now discloses its weighting rule, because dollar-weighted and person-weighted summaries of the same observations can move in opposite directions ($\bar{x}_{\text{dollar}} - \bar{x}_{\text{person}} = \operatorname{Cov}(C_i, x_i)/\bar{C}$); neither is the false one, and where they diverge persistently both are published (§23: Extended Telemetry). Household transmission in the state model: §26: Adoption Curve & Ecosystem Dynamics gains cross-cutting observables — saving rate, delinquency by cohort, first-time-buyer share, underemployment, mean-versus-median net worth, sentiment against spending — with the argument that household depletion changes how states transition, not just how they feel. Distributed resilience: §29: The Closed Sovereign Stack gains the formal model ($O_i < 0 \Rightarrow \Delta R_i < 0$; $R_{\text{state}} \neq R_{\text{household}}$) and the requirement that the open stack evidence distributed resilience rather than sovereign continuity alone — a stability argument, not a redistribution argument. The household amplifier: the joint failure mode paragraph gains the nonlinear-break mechanism — resilient aggregates as the sum of two individually fragile mechanisms, upper-cohort discretionary spending and lower-cohort necessity spending, each of which fails differently under the same asset repricing. A new objection (§30: Objections & Responses): a perfect ledger hardens an unequal starting state; the response concedes the ledger point, locates the real claim in acquisition-channel breadth rather than record neutrality, and specifies the falsifier — new-participant acquisition from labor income staying negligible while incumbent concentration rises, visible in buyer-map cohorts. Five glossary entries and the synthesis’s closing edge: proof tells us whether a claim is true, representation whom it describes, capability what participants can do — a stack that verifies everything and represents almost no one is a more efficient ledger for the exhaustion dynamics it was built to escape.

v2.5 — the prose pass. No new claims: this version makes the argument read like itself. An audit against the thesis’s own best prose (Part I) found the gold-standard voice allocated almost entirely to the demolitions (fee incidence, the fork, the closed-stack comparison) while the constructive chapters (Work Credits, the design space, the evaluation framework) and the instrumentation core (telemetry, red lines 1–8) were left as bullet lists and spec boxes. The capability was present throughout — the audit found Part I-grade passages inside nearly every weak section — but the document’s spec-first architecture kept burying them. The red lines get their paragraphs: Red Lines 1–8, previously bare definitionboxes with one-line shrugs, now carry the dramatization Red Lines 9–15 already had — the touchstone for RL1, refund safety as a verdict for RL2, monoculture as a single point of political failure for RL3, telemetry capture as rigging the scoreboard for RL4, the guards-in-scrip condition promoted to trip wire for RL5, the paper-gold precedent for RL6, the shrinking anonymity set for RL7, and precedent-not-heist for RL8. The conclusion is re-ordered and its overclaim fixed: the “Proofs will anchor truth” formulation — explicitly disavowed in §30: Objections & Responses (“proofs do not create truth; they bound disputes”) — becomes “Proofs will bound what can be faked”; the seven-instrument incantation at §33: Conclusion: A Bell Labs for Privacy, Proofs, and Compute’s peak is replaced with three human sentences each instrument makes measurable; and “Two Loops, Not One” now precedes “Equip, Don’t Manage,” so the thesis ends on the owner/tenant question rather than a dashboard epigraph. The reference applications become narratives: the four Create/Compute/Prove/Settle/Verify recitations (§21: The Modular Stack) now open with a scene — a newsroom and a fabricated clip, a treasurer under capital controls — before the flow. Analogies deployed throughout, all historically on-thesis: the touchstone (verification asymmetry), Lloyd’s Register and the assay punch (lot sampling), water pressure and the trunk main (DVC and min-cut), paper gold (wrapper dominance), the fire extinguisher versus the contract for its delivery (convenience yield), SushiSwap’s vampire attack (the fork’s moat), a thousand cars with one GPS (policy concentration), guards paid in fresh scrip (issuance-funded security), the toll versus the detour (the capturable wedge). Structural repairs: the Part III closing refrain, printed twice within fifty lines (the L3 close and the Part III summary), is deduplicated and the summary given its own close; the 230-word Mechanical Pressure Ratio bullet is broken into prose; the “Cross-reference:” ledger-opener in fee routing is replaced; the hedging loop (value-capture conditions restated four times, “typed service claims” recited) is compressed to statement-once-plus-pointer. No mathematical content, definition, threshold, or cross-reference was altered; every cross-reference target and every survives.

v2.6 — the Perez pass. No new claims, no thresholds moved, no red lines relaxed: this version adds a temporal layer to a thesis whose macro model was state-based but not yet clock-aware. The source is Perez [Perez 2002], adopted for one mechanism — the clearing event that reprices installed infrastructure — and quarantined for everything else. The capital cycle as a cross-cutting clock: §26: Adoption Curve & Ecosystem Dynamics gains the observation that the four states describe the sovereign system’s condition while saying nothing about when within an infrastructure buildout that condition is being read, and that the installation/Turning Point/deployment sequence supplies the missing axis — a clock rather than a fifth state, because it advances independently of which state the system occupies. The two frameworks are shown to make the same demand of the reader: the destination is not the next observation. How the transition window closes: §26: Adoption Curve & Ecosystem Dynamics gains the argument that the bridge-then-destination picture’s unstated assumption — an orderly handoff — is the historically unusual case, and that the window is more likely to close by clearing event than by accrual; the demand base the triad’s fee instruments measure is disproportionately a post-repricing phenomenon, so the 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: §10: Work Credits: Energy-Anchored Claims and §9: Compute Through the “AI Money” Lens gain the distinction between technological deflation (gradual unit-cost decline, stable utilization) and financial repricing (step-change in the price of installed capacity, 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 as a deployment-phase quantity: §26: Adoption Curve & Ecosystem Dynamics now states explicitly that Phase III fee coverage is not a smooth path from Phase II but 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 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: The Closed Sovereign Stack gains the historically better-attested birth pathway for the closed stack — the state not choosing coordination but inheriting it, as the residual claimant on distressed strategic assets after the clearing event — which 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 of WNG, convenience-yield telemetry, and Homestead Ratio already specified as the readable warning. Two glossary entries and one Sources entry are added with the same scope note: mechanism only, no periodization adopted, no forecasts derived, instruments govern where they conflict.

v3.0 — the moneyness pass. The first version to change the thesis’s headline claim. Prior versions located monetary premium as a residual — value in excess of discounted cash flows — and §10: Work Credits: Energy-Anchored Claims correctly showed that fees, burns, and collateral do not reach it. A residual definition admits no affirmative evidence, and the thesis had accordingly retreated to a single unsized mechanism with no instrument reading on it. This version replaces the residual definition with three positive mechanisms, each carrying an instrument and a falsifier, and closes the structural gap that every one of the previous fifteen red lines read on links 2 through 8 of §6: The Triad and the Monetary Candidate while the monetary claim lived at link 9. Pledgeability without due diligence (§10: Work Credits: Energy-Anchored Claims): moneyness in the collateral literature is information-insensitivity — no-questions-asked acceptance — conventionally reached through symmetric ignorance, which holds only until somebody looks. Cheap universal verification reaches the same property through symmetric knowledge, which has no such trigger, because there is no private information left to produce. The claim is scoped to unit quality rather than to fundamentals, is stated as necessary and not sufficient against its own counterexamples (graded commodities, certified diamonds, bearer bonds, warehouse receipts), and locates the differentiator in the collateralized position rather than the token — which supplies, for the first time in this document, a monetary justification for Layer 0 rather than an engineering one. Denomination (§10: Work Credits: Energy-Anchored Claims): the strongest and stickiest monetary function, measured as free-choice denomination share over contracts the protocol did not mandate, tiered by whether the counterparty sits inside or outside the accounting perimeter, with the quote/settle matrix published as the headline denominator and bitcoin’s fifteen-year record of settling without denominating stated at full strength as the standing counterexample. Verification modalities (§19: Layer 4: Truth & Work): the single $r(W) \leq 0.3$ ceiling is replaced by modality bands, because a workload can satisfy that ceiling and still sit in the regime where participants sample or delegate rather than check — symmetric ignorance arrived at by an SLO the network is passing. Only succinct (M1) and algebraic or probabilistic (M2) verification carry the monetary mechanism; replicated and attested verification (M3) support service delivery, Work Credits, and SLA tiers but not the pledgeability claim, because a position whose correctness rests on a committee requires the lender to form a view about that committee. The legacy ceiling is retained and relabelled as a portfolio-level engineering floor on which no monetary claim reads. Three new red lines, all reading on link 9: Red Line 16 gives the existing convenience-yield telemetry a clock, a threshold, and a consequence, retiring the state-contingency claim if the series proves flat across regime states; Red Line 17 trips on cross-lender haircut dispersion failing to decline as verification coverage rises, or widening under stress while receipts remain available; Red Line 18 splits into a weakens condition for outsiders declining to reckon in the unit and a kills condition for protocol participants declining to on contracts nobody required them to write in anything, with an accounting carve-out for externally mandated quoting units without which the second condition is not defensible and reverts to weakens. The high-$\Delta$ tail is disaggregated (§10: Work Credits: Energy-Anchored Claims): the tail the fee is set against is two populations, not one — supervised counterparties who need evidence and unsuable counterparties who need absence — and each one’s requirement is the other’s disqualifier. The corrosion runs through the shared anonymity set rather than the rail, which is why lawful privacy resolves the technical compatibility without resolving the set composition; price discrimination between the segments is available and destroys the network good it prices; revenue is accordingly not additive across the tails, and $f$ and $Q$ are anticorrelated through the same distribution. The criterion is offered to §6: The Triad and the Monetary Candidate as a discriminator between architectures, and the instrument is departure rather than census, because a set whose composition is published is not an anonymity set. The fork is reclassified (§10: Work Credits: Energy-Anchored Claims) from bypass channel to alternative equilibrium in a coordination game. A fork runs the same technology, so the cost handicap vanishes and the bound becomes $\Delta_{\mathrm{coord}}$; the fee is subject to the minimum of that and the technical bound, which is a tightening of §10: Work Credits: Energy-Anchored Claims rather than a relaxation. Openness is shown to cut both ways — it drives the technical differential to zero and raises the coordination one, since Schelling points are made of common knowledge — and the moat is stated as buyable by capital rather than guaranteed. The SushiSwap observation is relocated to its correct reference class and its limits stated: one case, selected after the fact, not a base rate. Red Line 14’s reference panel gains a mandatory fork row, and acceptance breadth becomes a published series. Link 7’s chain-strength rating is unchanged; the magnitude is now specified as two magnitudes, both still unestimated, each with an instrument. §10: Work Credits: Energy-Anchored Claims is rewritten in post-retraction voice rather than annotated: its question is answered affirmatively for the first time, through four channels of which the first two are conceded to be non-monetary; the “all uses of the triad must flow through the asset” overclaim is corrected to the bypass-as-magnitude position the document already holds; net supply reduction is demoted from design property to published reading; and issuance discipline is explained as the one lemma condition doing monetary work, because an asset whose supply is discretionary is information-sensitive on supply — the same conclusion §10: Work Credits: Energy-Anchored Claims reached from the other direction, now agreeing for a stated reason rather than by coincidence. The §10: Work Credits: Energy-Anchored Claims is reproduced verbatim and is unchanged. §29: The Closed Sovereign Stack’s epistemic-status sidebar is corrected: it disclaimed any load-bearing role while the chapter was simultaneously used to support Premise 1, and the corroborative reading is now stated in both places. No chain-strength rating rises. Three mechanisms and three instruments were added to link 9; none of them is evidence that link 9 holds, and a rating that rises because an argument was added is self-congratulation. No threshold was moved, no red line relaxed, and no falsification condition withdrawn. Five Sources entries and six glossary entries are added, each with the scope note the house convention requires. Late refinement to Route A, folded into this version rather than deferred, because v3.0 had not yet been released when it was made. The symmetric knowledge formulation originally read that verification is free “so everyone has already looked,” which asserted a universal audit that is observed nowhere and would have been refuted on first reading. The mechanism never required it: what removes the run trigger is the absence of a discoverable edge, which free and public verification supplies whether or not anyone exercises it, and the discipline accordingly falls on the claimant before the claim is made — the structure by which contestability disciplines conduct without entry (Baumol, 1982). §10: Work Credits: Energy-Anchored Claims now states the equilibrium as one in which verification is constantly available and almost never used, and both abstracts, §19: Layer 4: Truth & Work, and the two draft mirrors were corrected to match. The Grossman–Stiglitz free-rider objection — if verification is free, nobody is paid to verify — is stated against the thesis and answered from the prover/verifier cost separation, which is also shown to be the same fact as §10: Work Credits: Energy-Anchored Claims’s fee concession seen from the financing side, so the two results constrain each other rather than coexisting by accident. A second invariance is claimed and bounded: verification cost is invariant to adversarial effort as well as to notional, which answers the objection that deception scales alongside checking, and holds only over claims expressible as a computation — a class explicitly narrower than the class of claims on which trust is currently failing. The compressed cypherpunk instruction don’t trust, verify is corrected in §0: Introduction and §29: The Closed Sovereign Stack to verify in order to trust, on the grounds that a thesis whose success condition is no-questions-asked acceptance cannot coherently banner permanent suspicion; what both the cryptographic and the sovereign instruction minimize is unpriced dependence, not trust. Red Line 14 gains a plain-language gloss identifying Condition A as the instrument that reads whether anybody pays for the truth, and names market indifference as the failure mode with no technical signature and the one in which the thesis is most likely to be quietly wrong. Two Sources entries are added. No threshold moved, no red line relaxed, no chain-strength rating changed. The prompt for the refinement was Green [Green 2026f], whose account of the economics of verification supplied the observation that cheap checking routinely goes unperformed and two objections this section now answers. The corrections stand on Baumol (1982) and Grossman & Stiglitz (1980) rather than on that essay: the mechanism, the monetary consequence, and the synthesis with the collateral literature are this thesis’s own, and no argument here depends on a paywalled source.

v3.1 — the peer-review remediation pass. No thresholds moved upward, no red line relaxed, no rating raised; several conditions are re-specified so that they can be failed, which is a tightening. An external review of v3.0 (REVIEW-v3.0.md in the repository) graded the thesis on originality, accuracy, consistency, cogency, soundness, and utility and returned forty-nine line-anchored findings; every P0–P2 item is applied here. Structure and consistency. A duplicated section header and leaked draft comments that compiled into two consecutive sections with identical titles in §10: Work Credits: Energy-Anchored Claims are removed. “Fifteen red lines” survived in the allocator reading path, the objections chapter, and the outreach surface after v3.0 added three; every count now reads eighteen, “eleven of eighteen … the four they do not reach” reads seven and names Red Lines 16–18, and bitcoin’s record is stated as seventeen years. Red Line 1’s condition had drifted onto the Physical VerifyPrice series that belongs to Red Line 10; it is restored to the verification-cost series. Red Line 5 and four other passages used the fee-plus-burn quantity that v2.3 retired; every coverage instance now reads retained-fee coverage per §22: Layer 6: Governance & Telemetry, and the 30% adoption gate is distinguished from the 10% red line (three turnover instances survived this pass and were corrected to gross native fee turnover in v3.2). Tier C carried four incompatible rules and now has one: service-grade Work Credits at $0.3\times$, collateral-ineligible. VerifyPrice was defined three ways; the five-field tuple is canonical and the physical tuples are labelled input views with memory and bandwidth published rather than priced. Two hardcoded section numbers become cross-references. Accuracy. The MATMUL_4096 acceptance bound used matrix $\infty$-norms and admitted INT8 execution and a single output entry corrupted by two hundred times its typical magnitude, both reproduced numerically; it is replaced with the componentwise backward-error bound (Higham, 2002 [Higham 2002]) at $\varepsilon_r \approx 10^{-5}$, with an adversarial acceptance suite required at registration, and the workload is split into Freivalds (M2) and succinct (M1) SKUs in a single registry table (§19: Layer 4: Truth & Work). Freivalds’ check [Freivalds 1977] is relabelled a theorem and the soundness-per-round arithmetic corrected to $r \approx 3k/n$. Lloyd’s Register, a per-vessel survey, is no longer offered as a sampling precedent; acceptance sampling (ANSI/ASQ Z1.4 [DoD 1989]) and pharmaceutical lot release are, and the detection bound gains a test-sensitivity factor $\sigma$ with the sampling programme re-targeted at the defects it can see. Uniform-random-bytes transports are identified as themselves a fingerprint (Wu et al., 2023 [Wu et al. 2023]) and look-like-something fallbacks are added to Layer 1. The viewing-key table promised revocation and amount-bounding that no shielded design provides; it is replaced by a disclosure-scope model with per-row mechanisms. Refund safety is redefined as a bounded-time no-loss exit measured over protocol-attributable failures; BTC$\leftrightarrow$shielded-ZEC is stated not to exist and gated; anonymity-set metrics are per-asset. The Tornado Cash narrative is completed through Van Loon [Fifth Circuit 2024], the March 2025 delisting, and the August 2025 Storm conviction [SDNY 2025], and the Howey walkthrough [SEC v. Howey 1946] engages the 2025 SEC staff statements [SEC 2025a] [SEC 2025b]. Fedimint [Fedimint Project 2024–25] is labelled federated custody; Bitcoin’s grid independence is narrowed to what it is. The municipal-bond paragraph that contradicted “proofs must not become the bond” is removed. Culkin’s venue [Culkin 1967], the authorship of the BTC$\leftrightarrow$XMR swap protocol (Gugger, 2020 [Gugger 2020]), and C2PA’s parent organisation [C2PA spec] are corrected, the FEDS Note [Barth et al. 2025] is authored, Cheng & Madhavan [Cheng & Madhavan 2009] and Avellaneda & Zhang [Avellaneda & Zhang 2010] are credited for the leverage identities, and every Sources entry carries a URL or DOI, with the nine previously undated newsletter items dated from their publications’ archives and one journal attribution corrected; every entry now opens with a bracketed [Author Year] key and the body cites by that key, hyperlinked to the entry, with seven entries added where the prose named a source that had none (Nakamoto, Shannon, Chesney and Citron, the two OFAC Tornado Cash actions, FATF Recommendation 16, MiCA) and nineteen landscape references marked as not cited. Soundness. §10: Work Credits: Energy-Anchored Claims is scoped against Dang, Gorton and Holmström [Dang et al. 2020]: their insensitivity is a payoff property; this section’s argument is adverse selection on unit quality, Bitcoin is named as the control case whose perfectly verifiable units carry 30–50% haircuts, and the prediction is narrowed to haircut dispersion and post-shock convergence rather than levels. Red Line 17 is re-specified to that prediction with a lender-panel maturity gate, so that it is a test Bitcoin can pass or fail rather than one it fails by construction. Red Line 18’s Condition B is re-specified on net denomination of insider obligations, and the false claim that insiders face no basis risk — and that Bitcoin cannot trip B — is withdrawn: Bitcoin sits at or near tripping it and is the standing counterexample. Red Line 16 gains a minimum of two regime transitions and a pre-registered power calculation, so that a flat series kills only when the test could have seen the effect. Maturity gates are added to the concentration lines, and every red line that reads on a series now carries a numeric trigger (Red Lines 8 and 12 remained structural conditions until v3.2 gave them thresholds; Red Line 4 is binary by nature). The question the review put hardest — why a holder hedging loss of access buys the base asset rather than Bitcoin plus Work Credits — is answered once, in §27: Risk Analysis & Failure Modes, and its failure is identified as the outcome Red Lines 16 and 18 already detect. The base-rate claim of §31: Why a Base Asset Behind These Could Become Money is restricted to equity-like claims on a fee stream and Menger’s saleability account [Menger 1892] is engaged as an argument for the commodity path rather than ignored. Issuance weights above $1.0\times$, which minted more Work Credits than delivered work, are capped; the Monetary Constitution is split into a base-asset issuance envelope and Work Credit minting rules, with the capacity modulator given a scale; the zero-DVC default is resolved in favour of explicit force-majeure declaration; Delivered Verified Capacity is stated as a generalized flow; disruption-adjusted VerifyPrice is computed over the pooled distribution rather than by averaging percentiles. Emergency delisting is advisory by default. The Value Capture Lemma is restated as an accrual result with an argument, and the Market-Price Non-Equivalence Corollary is derived from the existence of the wrapper rows. Pass (2026) is engaged on the economics of proof-of-useful-work, and the usefulness–unpredictability dilemma is stated as an open problem (§19: Layer 4: Truth & Work). Utility. The institution the thesis proposes is named for the first time in the source. §32: Kardashev Labs: Build and Measure states the investment thesis as stack first, coin optional — the verifiable stack and its measurement institution are underwritable public infrastructure with buyers who are not token holders; the base-asset premium is a free option instrumented for its own retirement — and supplies dated deliverables mapped to the Minimum Viable Stack, a team shape, the structure of a planning envelope funded in deliverable-gated tranches (figures held in a separate costed plan, not in this text), an entity and licensing posture, a research agenda of the seven problems this document names as open, and kill conditions for the lab itself. The hardware appendix gains a proving-cost roadmap (Appendix E: Hardware Profiles): the cost metric distinguished from the open-market price, the February 2026 auction reading [Shankar 2026], the per-SKU proving overhead, and the modality bet stated as a slope with an eight-quarter kill condition. The KPI appendix becomes an instrument table; the glossary gains the terms the body used without defining and is reconciled with the body on Sovereign Optionality; the SDK payroll example no longer settles in a stablecoin. Three changelog claims that described edits never made are made true by making the edits. The review’s grades are recorded in the repository and not here; the thesis’s job is to earn better ones on the next reading.

v3.2 — the propagation pass. No threshold moved, no red line relaxed, no rating raised, no mechanism added. A second whole-thesis review (REVIEW-v3.1.md) found that v3.1 had applied every remediation at the site of its finding and left the document’s summaries and definitions where they were, so that the body stood at v3.1 while the Thesis in Plain Language, the Chain at a Glance, the Key Definitions, the glossary, the instrument table, and the formal-definitions appendix still read as v2.x on exactly the points v3.0 and v3.1 changed. This version propagates. Summaries. The Plain Language chapter and the Chain at a Glance now state the three mechanisms of link 9 — pledgeability without due diligence, denomination, and the state-contingent holder-side flow — with Red Lines 16–18 as their falsifiers; “three bridges Medium” reads six, matching §6: The Triad and the Monetary Candidate; the chain walk’s link 9 and the table’s premium row name all three mechanisms rather than state-contingency alone. Definitions. Refund safety has one definition, in §20: Layer 5: Value & Settlement, and every other site — Definition 5, the instrument table, the Reader’s Map, the glossary, the Part I stress test — states it in those terms rather than as a hard $1.0$; the two denominators (protocol-attributable for the Layer 5 SLO at 99.9%, overall for Red Line 2 and the Phase I gate at 99.5%) are stated together once. The metric’s own wording at §20: Layer 5: Value & Settlement, which had defined the percentage over the set it should exclude, is corrected. The glossary’s entry for symmetric knowledge carried the “every participant has already produced it” formulation that the v3.0 late refinement retracted; it now states the deterrence mechanism. The glossary’s take rate read “fees plus burns” against Red Line 14’s gross-fees rule and is corrected; the 30% phase gate reads 12–24 months everywhere; Bronze/Silver/Gold is defined as the latency axis with the assurance axis, the power-firmness classes, and Gold assurance distinguished. The Key Definitions box no longer gives Work Credits a governance weight that §22: Layer 6: Governance & Telemetry denies them, and the energy-anchoring sentence prices production rather than verification. VerifyReach had two incompatible definitions of $\text{succ}_2$ and two threshold sets; Definition 4 now defers to §15: Layer 1: Reachability, and the Layer 1 falsifier carries its uncensored-region denominator at every site. Cross-Part consistency. §10: Work Credits: Energy-Anchored Claims stated that no red line covers the collateral–capacity loop; Red Line 15 is that loop, and the passage now says so. §10: Work Credits: Energy-Anchored Claims argued from the v3.0 single-axis tier multipliers that v3.1 replaced and now argues from the assurance axis. The fee partition was stated four ways across Parts II–V, with a Layer 0 Assurance Fund at “2% of fee revenue” in Part III and a 10% assurance budget in Part V; the reference-design partition (70% capacity providers and delegating stakers, 20% retired, 10% assurance) is pinned once in §22: Layer 6: Governance & Telemetry and quoted everywhere else, with the Assurance Fund as the assurance budget’s largest line. Three surviving “fee-plus-burn turnover” instances read gross native fee turnover, and the v3.1 entry above is corrected on that point. Red Line 8 gains a numeric clause — a single address family above 20% of time-locked governance weight for two quarters, the threshold at which §22: Layer 6: Governance & Telemetry’s per-family cap binds, and emergency-path use above two invocations in four quarters — and Red Line 12 a forced-disclosure incidence threshold and a non-custodial share floor, so that the v3.1 entry’s claim that every red line carries a numeric trigger becomes true and is annotated. Ten sites that presented BTC$\leftrightarrow$ZEC as a deployed corridor after v3.1 gated it now read BTC$\leftrightarrow$XMR with shielded-ZEC gated. The trademark notice names one author. The README’s red-line section, headed “Fifteen” since v2.6, lists eighteen. The two promised tables and the instrument reconciliation. The instrument table of Appendix B: Practical KPIs & Telemetry Templates, which by its own rule treats any body metric absent from it as a defect, gains rows for the three link-9 instruments — the convenience-yield vector (Red Line 16), cross-lender haircut dispersion (Red Line 17), and free-choice denomination share with the quote/settle matrix (Red Line 18) — and for the M1+M2 share, acceptance breadth, forced-disclosure incidence, governance-weight concentration, and the Native Monetary Buyer Map; Red Line 10’s row carries its numbers. The modality $\times$ grade collateral haircut table that §19: Layer 4: Truth & Work said a later pass owed is supplied (§14: Layer 0: Verifiable Machines & Energy), with the modality increment exceeding the grade increment in every cell but one. The scope-drift gap of §10: Work Credits: Energy-Anchored Claims becomes a published series, off-ledger exposure disclosure, on the Value Capture Board, with no trigger of its own. Accuracy and naming. The introduction’s vignette now says what it shows — the stack closing — and what it does not: its batch is quoted in dollars and settled in the unit, the payment-rail configuration Red Line 18 names as the null, with the base asset present as fee medium and settlement unit only; the proof fee and corridor fee are paid in the base asset. The intro’s claim that receipts survive platform stripping defers to the soft-binding account of §17: Layer 3: Identity & Claims. The constitutional cost band on verifying receipts is renamed the Real-Resource VerifyPrice SLO, so that “Physical VerifyPrice” names only the FCR audit cost of Red Line 10; the receipt schema carries an assurance tier beside the latency tier. Gold’s lease rates are “ordinarily” negligible, with the early-2025 episode named; Fedimint’s federation posts no bond; the stablecoin-flight and lost-bitcoin claims carry sources (Chainalysis (2024), (2020)); FCMP++ is stated to have no mainnet date set at the time of writing; the corridor time-to-finality target is set at 90 minutes, above the deployed corridor’s confirmation-bound floor rather than below it; the adoption failure-gate rows for Red Lines 1 and 3 say “falsified” as the red lines do; registry identifiers carry their suffixes; VerifyReach probes are paid from the assurance budget rather than in Work Credits; the S3 sunset is subject to the DVC bound; and twenty-two Sources entries that lacked a scope note now carry one. No threshold moved, no red line relaxed.

New here? Start with the one-minute version.

Tip: hover a heading to reveal its permalink symbol for copying.