8.1 Multi-Agent EPV Notation

Typical actors and their EPV are:

  • EPV_C: consumers (Consumer);
  • EPV_L: labor (Labor);
  • EPV_M: firms / capital (Market / Firm);
  • EPV_G: government (Government);
  • EPV_Low: low-status / vulnerable groups (Low-status).

CBT asks how the EPV of these actors co-evolves under the same institutional structure and Bus network:

  • Who is paying for whom?
  • Who bears hidden costs?
  • Whose EPV is systematically compressed or even liquidated?
  • Which actors contribute positive FCF to the system, and which actors systematically extract FCF from it?

8.2 Structural Instability Criterion (Simplified)

In qualitative analysis, the following criterion can be used:

If, over the long run:

  • ΔEPV_{M+G} > 0 (the EPV of firms and government rises);
  • ΔEPV_{L+Low} < 0 (the EPV of labor and vulnerable groups falls);
  • and there is no credible legal repair mechanism;

then the system will often also exhibit:

  • Δr_u > 0 (the tail-risk premium rises);
  • Δr_s > 0 (the social subjective discount rate rises, with more short-termism and cynicism);
  • a widening Scissors Gap Δr (the time horizons of decision makers and society become increasingly misaligned).

The system enters a “boundary-rewriting risk zone.”

This criterion is not a precise equation but a structural signal:

  • If growth is built on systematically depressing the EPV of labor and vulnerable groups,
  • the cost will sooner or later return in the form of a higher r_u and greater systemic risk;
  • Any actor that attempts to “optimize only its own EPV” while ignoring other actors will face structural backlash over the long run.