FROM PUBLIC EVIDENCE.TO A RATIFIED MECHANISM.
The method does not make public information proprietary. It tests whether separate public facts form a consequential dependency, what would disprove that dependency, and where the surviving mechanism changes a decision.A CANDIDATE DOES NOT BECOME A RATIFIED MECHANISM BECAUSE IT SOUNDS PLAUSIBLE.
Each stage has a different job. A dependency mechanism candidate becomes a ratified dependency mechanism only if the mechanism and evidence boundary survive challenge. Decision relevance is tested separately when the ratified mechanism is applied to a surface, a function and a decision boundary.
Generate candidate dependency mechanisms from public evidence. Look for changing relationships between things still treated as separate.
Attack the candidate with contradiction, prior art, separability and falsifiability tests. Ask what evidence would kill it.
Promote only a surviving mechanism. Freeze what is OBSERVED, MODELLED, INFERRED and UNPROVEN so later work cannot silently upgrade the evidence.
Map the ratified dependency mechanism onto the public surface, its functions and decision boundaries without claiming knowledge of internal portfolios or models.
Choose the consequential question to develop. GUARD asks what the dependency could threaten. CREATE asks what recognising it could make newly valuable.
NULL IS A VALID RESULT.
The method is designed to permit NULL at both stages. A mechanism does not ratify if it cannot be separated from prior art or survive contradiction. A ratified mechanism does not pass a surface test unless consequential decision relevance can be supported without unsupported assumptions.
Is the dependency mechanism defined precisely enough to test?
Is this more than a relabelled known risk or existing category?
What public evidence weakens or breaks the proposed connection?
Has the same dependency already been publicly recognised in materially equivalent form?
Could the ratified mechanism change a real institutional decision on this surface?
What evidence would cause the dependency or downstream claim to fail?
THE MARKET REVEALS THE DECISION ECOLOGY.
THE METHOD INTERPRETS IT.
Once a mechanism is ratified and mapped to a surface, the institutional mapping follows a fixed order: the bounded Decision Boundary the institution owns, the Function associated with it, then the Role class, confirmed from public role evidence, and finally the human pathway: who discovers the condition, who validates it, who can sponsor action. Titles do not route first. A desk is used only where an institution genuinely operates through desks.
The bounded institutional decision that may be altered, enabled, constrained or challenged. Owned by the institution; several dependencies can converge on one boundary. Does the accumulation boundary stop at the data centre?
The institutional capability associated with that boundary: accumulation, portfolio, underwriting, technical risk, enterprise risk, actuarial, claims, or a cross-class owner.
The decision-owning role class, established from the institution's public role evidence. A role is the output of translation, not the input.
Who is likely to encounter the condition, who can determine whether it is real and material, and who has the mandate to act. One person may hold more than one position; the pathway is never forced where public evidence does not support it.
The method stays outside-in. Public evidence can establish the mechanism, its evidence state and the institution's public footprint. It cannot establish how an institution treats a dependency internally. That comparison belongs to the institution.