Why it remains worth publishing

The early pilot text brings real-life friction into view: who wants to participate, who feels compelled, whose contributions are easier to see, how assessment creates unfairness, how incentives become distorted, how beneficiaries are protected, and how failures are heard.

How to read it today

The 100 people, six months, evaluator numbers, scales, thresholds, roles, and resource arrangements in the text are historical examples, not currently recommended parameters. Future trials must be redesigned around psychological experience, fairness, justice, incentives, basic rights, and consequences for third parties.

Relationship to the fundamental design

This text does not reduce contribution value to a single community experiment. It preserves the questions that must be answered as contribution value moves from a foundation for recognizing value toward future real-world settings.

Boundaries that must not be crossed

Contribution value is foundational because it breaks monopolies of money, power and visibility over value recognition, not because it compresses people into one score. It does not measure personal worth, life’s meaning, purity of motive or obedience; decide basic rights; or automatically create resource-use rights, votes, professional qualifications or governing sovereignty.

Pilots must not look only for contributions outside the mainstream

Contribution value is not reserved for unpaid, inconspicuous, positionless or powerless activity; it is not against markets, wealth, positions or power. Business, work, earning income, public communication, holding office, management and responsible exercises of power during launch and transition may also create recordable contributions. What matters is not whether conduct is mainstream, profitable, visible or socially positioned, but what value it creates, responsibility it carries, outcomes it brings to whom, harm it reduces, shared systems it maintains and long-term externalities it generates. Money, fame, office and power are neither automatic proof nor grounds for exclusion.

Continue from this work

This publicly presented theory, institutional design or concept explains purposes, causality, conditions, responsibilities, interfaces and risk boundaries. It does not establish practical feasibility for specific actors, resources, jurisdictions, responsibilities and users. Concrete engineering must be developed in the wider context once real conditions are clear.

Translation scope

This page translates the public web description. The reviewed English manuscript is available in the English PDF section below; its source edition is identified there.

English PDF

Download the English PDF · v1.0.4-H1