Generative Interests and Legal Relations - Permission, Capability Impairment, and Remedy

Abstract

This paper is analytic jurisprudence. It states no proposition about the law of
any jurisdiction, and its single positive-law citation is a regulatory record
used only for the dates it records. Its subject is a family of inferences that
recur in argument about whether and how generative capacity could be legally
protected, and its claim is that several of them are invalid on grounds that do
not depend on any jurisdiction’s content. The first is the inference from the
absence of an intellectual-property exclusion right to a general permission to
use. On a Hohfeldian analysis, the absence of a claim-right establishes at most
a privilege, held by one party, against one party, with respect to one act,
under one body of law, and revocable by anyone holding a power to alter the
relation. Reading it as a permission commits five distinct and separable
fallacies, which the paper enumerates and proves. The second concerns the object
of protection. Generative capacity is directed at futures, and argument that
protects the specific futures a party would have realized is argument from a
counterfactual whose content is not merely uncertain in magnitude but
indeterminate in identity. The paper argues that the available object is a
presently existing generative position, and that this substitution reduces the
counterfactual burden without eliminating it. The third concerns proof. Present
impairment, elevated risk to future trajectories, and the value of unrealized
trajectories form a strict entailment chain with nested evidentiary
requirements, so a liability rule that conditions the recognition of injury on
proof of value renders established impairments unremediable — which is a choice
about remedial architecture rather than a consequence of the injuries. The
fourth concerns instruments. The candidate interests — attribution,
confidentiality, portability, participation, benefit sharing, access, and
non-foreclosure — are pairwise independent, and an exclusive right to exclude
is neither necessary nor sufficient for any of them, which is an argument
against inventing a property form rather than for it. The fifth concerns
remedies: those whose content is a state of affairs are determinable from
impairment-level facts, while those whose content is a sum are not, so a
compensation-only repertoire can address none of the injuries identified here.
The paper closes with five research obligations stating what any doctrinal claim
in this area would require and recording that none is discharged.

1. Introduction

The research discussion from which this programme derives ends on a question. If
the difficulty is that capital controls the conditions under which generative
capacity becomes effective, and if intellectual property is not the right
instrument, then perhaps the conclusion is that generativity should simply not be
protected — and in that case anyone may use anyone’s generative organization,
and that is acceptable. The researcher’s response to their own suggestion was
that they did not think so.

That response is correct, and this paper’s first result explains why it is
correct in a way that does not depend on any jurisdiction’s law. The inference
runs from the absence of a claim-right to the presence of a permission, and on
the standard analysis of legal positions those are different relations. The
absence of a claim-right against a party establishes at most a privilege, and a
privilege is held by one party, against one party, with respect to one act, under
one body of law, and is compatible with anyone else holding a power to alter it.
Five separable inferences are involved in reading it as a general permission, and
Proposition ? shows that each fails. That result is
jurisdiction-independent because it concerns the structure of jural relations
rather than their content.

The paper’s second concern is the object of protection, and it begins from
another observation of the researcher’s: generative capacity is directed at
futures, and legal argument is structurally suspicious of claims resting on what
would have happened. That suspicion is not a defect. An argument of the form
“had the other party not acted, I could have done such-and-such” licenses
almost anything if the counterfactual may be chosen freely, which is why systems
that permit recovery for future consequences hedge it with requirements of
foreseeability, proximity, and proof.

The difficulty here is worse than the usual one, and saying how it is worse is
part of the paper’s contribution. Ordinary claims about future loss are uncertain
about the magnitude a known trajectory would have produced. Claims about
foreclosed generative development are uncertain about which trajectories would
have existed at all. A companion project in this programme establishes the formal
counterpart: a foreclosed repertoire admits a witness — one development
available before and not after — while its extent is bracketed by bounds that do
not coincide, because the foreclosed developments are precisely the ones that
generated no evidence.

The paper’s response is the substitution the research discussion proposed: rather
than the specific futures a party would have realized, take as the object a
presently existing generative position — the organization held, the conditions
available, the trajectory under way, and the options presently open. The claim
that a party materially impaired such a position is weaker than the claim that it
destroyed particular futures, and it is a claim about a present state.

Proposition ? makes the resulting structure precise. Present
impairment, elevated risk to future trajectories, and the value of unrealized
trajectories form a strict entailment chain with nested evidentiary
requirements. What follows is a design observation rather than a doctrinal one:
a rule that recognizes an injury only on proof of value makes impairments
unremediable although they are established, and that is a property of the rule
rather than of the injury.

The paper’s third concern is instruments. The natural response to a gap in
protection is to propose a new right, and this paper argues against that. The
candidate interests are pairwise independent, and an exclusive right to exclude
others from using a generative organization is neither necessary nor sufficient
for any of them; Proposition ? proves this by exhibiting
configurations. The standardization of property forms supplies an independent
reason for caution about inventing one, and the enclosure literature supplies a
substantive one, since a new exclusion right over generative organizations is the
instrument most likely to produce the harm the programme’s other projects
describe.

The fourth concern is remedies, and here the paper has something constructive to
offer. Remedies whose content is a state of affairs — a declaration, a
correction of attribution, an order restoring access or portability, a
forbearance — are determinable from impairment-level facts together with a
specification of the target state. Remedies whose content is a sum require the
valuation tier. Proposition ? states this, and its corollary is
that a repertoire consisting only of compensation can address none of the
injuries this programme identifies. The counterweight is stated alongside: a
state-specifying remedy fixes an arrangement, and fixing an arrangement is itself
a way of foreclosing, so availability at the lower tier is not innocence at the
lower tier.

Two things about what this paper is. It is analytic jurisprudence and it states
no proposition about the law of any jurisdiction; the single positive-law
citation is a regulatory record, used only for the dates it records. And it is
preliminary by design, which the research discussion requested explicitly: the
jurisprudential material was to be included and framed as open questions and
preliminary propositions rather than as finished doctrine.
Section 7 states five research obligations specifying what
any doctrinal claim here would require, and records that none is discharged.

Section 2 sets the scope and separates the objects.
Section 3 reviews the analytical resources.
Section 4 argues six theses. Section 5 proves four
propositions. Section 6 presents the interest bundle and five
countermodels. Section 7 states the research obligations.
Section 8 records open questions and Section 9 the
limits.

The philosophical and formal parts are formally independent and
justificatorily dependent: no proposition cites a thesis, every
proposition survives the rejection of all six, and what does not survive is the
claim that they are the right things to prove.

2. Scope and the Separation of Objects

This section sets the paper’s scope and separates the objects that a legal
analysis must not run together. Its objective is to make the paper’s
jurisdictional silence a stated commitment rather than an omission, and to
establish that the thing at issue is not one thing.

2.1 Analytic Jurisprudence, and Why This Paper Stops There

The portfolio entry from which this project derives records it as the least
publication-ready of its ten, on the ground that every doctrinal claim,
authority, remedy, and statement of current legal status requires verification.
It also records the appropriate response: choose analytic jurisprudence or a
single jurisdiction, and do not characterize present law without support.

This paper takes the first option. It analyzes the structure of the legal
positions at issue and the inferential relations among candidate claims, and it
makes no assertion about what any legal system in fact protects, permits,
requires, or remedies. The one exception is a regulatory record cited for the
staged dates it publishes (Commission, 2026), and it is cited for the dates and
for nothing else.

The choice has a cost the paper accepts. Analytic results do not tell anyone
whether a claim would succeed, and a reader who wants that will not find it here.
The choice also has a benefit that is easy to undersell: results about the
structure of jural relations hold across jurisdictions precisely because they
concern structure, so the fallacies identified in
Section 5.2 are fallacies wherever the relations are
distinguished at all.

2.2 Four Objects, Not One

Argument in this area routinely treats “generativity” as a single object of
possible protection. At least four objects are involved, and they have different
legal characteristics.

A fixed trace is a recorded output: a text, a dataset, a program, a
figure. It is the object the existing categories are built for, and it is not the
object this programme is about.

A latent organization is the capacity that produced the trace and could
produce others. It is not observed, and a companion project establishes that it
is not identified by any finite record of what it has produced.

A situated trajectory is an ongoing course of development: the projects
under way, the collaborators, the accumulated position. It is presently existing
and partly observable, and it is what Section 4.2 proposes as the
object of protection.

Realization infrastructure is the set of conditions under which the
organization can develop. It is typically owned by someone, often by someone
other than the party whose organization is at issue, and companion projects
analyze control over it.

The separation matters because a legal instrument attaches to an object. A right
over traces does not reach an organization; a right over an organization would be
the property form Section 4.4 argues against; a protection of
a trajectory is a protection of a present position; and a claim about
infrastructure is a claim about someone else’s holdings. Arguments that move
between these without marking the move are the characteristic failure of writing
in this area, and the paper’s own results are stated with the object specified in
each case.

2.3 The Future-Orientation Constraint

The research discussion stated the constraint that governs everything here.
Generative capacity is directed at futures, and law does not generally accept
reasoning of the form “if the other party had not done this, I could have done
that.” Such reasoning, unconstrained, licenses any conclusion for which a
sufficiently favorable counterfactual can be described.

The constraint should be respected rather than argued around, and this paper
respects it in three ways.

It substitutes a present object for a future one, taking the impaired thing to be
a presently existing position rather than an unrealized development.

It separates the existence of an injury from the valuation of its consequences,
and does not treat the first as requiring the second
(Proposition ?).

And it directs the constructive part of the argument at remedies whose content
does not require a counterfactual valuation (Proposition ?).

None of this makes the counterfactual go away. Establishing that a position was
impaired still requires a comparison with what the position would have
been, and the comparison is a counterfactual about a present state rather than
about a future one. That is a smaller burden and not no burden, and
Section 9 records it as such.

2.4 Requirements on an Adequate Account

Four requirements follow.

First, the account must distinguish jural positions carefully enough that the
absence of one relation is not read as the presence of another.

Second, it must specify the object of every claim it makes among the four
distinguished above.

Third, it must separate the existence of an injury from the valuation of
consequences, and must not let a remedial architecture silently determine which
injuries are recognized.

Fourth, it must reach conclusions about instruments without proposing a new
exclusive right, since the programme’s other projects establish that such a right
is the instrument most likely to produce the harms under study.

3. Analytical Resources

This section reviews the resources the paper uses. Its objective is to record
what each supplies, what constraint each imposes, and where each stops. No source
in this corpus states any of the paper’s four propositions.

3.1 The Analysis of Jural Relations

Hohfeld’s analysis distinguishes eight legal positions arranged in correlative
and opposite pairs: right and duty, privilege and no-right, power and liability,
immunity and disability (Hohfeld, 1913; Hohfeld, 1917). Its
central methodological claim is that the word “right” in legal argument covers
several distinct relations, and that arguments equivocate between them.

This supplies the paper’s first result almost entirely, and the paper says so.
Proposition ? is an application rather than a discovery: what
is new is not the analysis but the observation that the inference the research
discussion identified — from non-protection to permission — is exactly the
equivocation Hohfeld’s scheme was constructed to expose, and that it decomposes
into five separable failures rather than one.

Two features of the scheme do the work. Positions are relational, holding between
two parties, so a privilege against one party is not a privilege against another.
And positions are act-indexed, so a privilege with respect to one act is not a
privilege with respect to another.

3.2 Property Forms and Their Standardization

Merrill and Smith analyze the numerus clausus principle, under which the forms of
property recognized by a legal system are standardized and limited in number, and
argue that standardization economizes on the information costs imposed on third
parties who must respect the resulting rights (Merrill & Smith, 2000).

This supplies the paper’s principled reason for caution about proposing a new
property form, and it is a reason of a specific kind: the cost of a novel form
falls on parties who are not before any court and who must ascertain what they may
do. A right over generative organizations would be a form whose boundaries are
defined by an object that a companion project establishes is not identified from
any record — which is the information-cost problem in an acute version.

Boyle’s analysis of the second enclosure movement supplies the substantive
counterpart (Boyle, 2003): the extension of property rights over
material formerly regarded as common, and the argument that a vocabulary adequate
to describe the loss is required. The paper’s use is that a new exclusion right
over generative organizations would be an instance of exactly the movement Boyle
describes, so proposing one as a remedy for the programme’s harms would be
self-defeating.

Ostrom’s demonstration that shared resources are sustained by institutional
arrangements that are neither private property nor central regulation
(Ostrom, 1990), its extension to knowledge (Hess & Ostrom, 2007),
Benkler’s analysis of production without proprietary exclusion
(Benkler, 2006), Frischmann’s case for commons management where
spillovers resist appropriation (Frischmann, 2012), and Romer’s
treatment of ideas as nonrival and partially excludable
(Romer, 1990) together supply the alternative: arrangements that are
not exclusion rights and not nothing. The paper takes the existence of the space
between them and no design principle.

3.3 Causation, Chance, and Future Consequences

Hart and Honoré analyze the causal concepts employed in legal reasoning, and in
particular the treatment of intervening voluntary conduct and of conditions
against which a cause is identified (Hart & Honor, 1985). This bears directly
on the programme’s propagation question, where a downstream party acts under
upstream pressure, and the paper uses it for the structural point that identifying
a cause presupposes a selection among conditions rather than a discovery.

King analyzes causation, valuation, and chance in claims involving preexisting
conditions and future consequences, and develops the treatment of a lost chance
as a distinct object of valuation rather than as an all-or-nothing question about
an outcome (King, 1981). This is the closest available analytical
treatment of the structure the paper needs: a party whose probability of reaching
some outcome has been reduced, where the outcome itself remains uncertain. The
paper uses the structure and takes no doctrinal claim.

Fuller and Perdue’s distinction between restitution, reliance, and expectation
interests supplies the observation that a legal system may recognize several
distinct measures of the same disturbance, and that the case for intervention can
be graded across them (Fuller & Perdue, 1936). The tier structure of
Proposition ? is a different partition of a similar kind, and the
paper claims no derivation.

3.4 Repair and Its Measures

Weinrib’s account of corrective justice treats repair as correlative to the
injury (Weinrib, 1995), which is the model the valuation tier would
satisfy and the lower tiers cannot. De Greiff’s analysis of reparations where the
juridical measure cannot be met, and his argument that political criteria then
carry the assessment, is the closest available treatment of a repair problem
without a magnitude (Greiff, 2006). Braithwaite’s restorative account
directs attention to the restoration of parties to a position from which they can
participate (Braithwaite, 2001), which is the shape of the
state-specifying remedies Proposition ? identifies.

Frankel’s analysis of fiduciary structure identifies the recurring form of
relations in which one party entrusts property or power to another better
positioned to use it, and derives duties from that structure
(Frankel, 1983). The paper uses this for one point: a legal system
can attach duties to a relation’s structure without creating a property right in
its object, which is a template for the assembled protections
Section 4.4 favors.

3.5 The Interests and Their Non-Legal Grounds

The candidate interests the paper analyzes are not derived from the legal
materials, and their non-legal grounds are recorded so that the derivation is not
mistaken for a legal one. The affected object is opportunity rather than
achievement (Sen, 1993; Robeyns, 2005; Nussbaum, 2000). A
question about who may determine another’s developmental conditions is a question
about a relation and is not answered by a statement of holdings
(Anderson, 1999), and subjection to another’s discretion is defective
independently of whether the discretion is exercised
(Pettit, 1997). A party unable to establish what was done to it
is disadvantaged in its capacity as a knower (Fricker, 2007). The
distributive criterion (Rawls, 1999) is recorded and applied to no case.

The diagnostic whose satisfaction would make a configuration a candidate for
legal attention is the companion framework’s, resting on comparison against a
feasible alternative arrangement (Roemer, 1982), declining consent
and mutual benefit as exculpatory (Wertheimer, 1996), and
admitting relational (Vrousalis, 2013) and structural
(Wollner, 2019) forms. Zwolinski’s constraint against inferring
status from background conditions applies here with force, since a legal category
that followed from structural disadvantage alone would be unusable
(Zwolinski, 2012). Young’s distinction between forward-looking
structural responsibility and liability marks the two forms an allocation could
take (Young, 2006). Khan’s argument that structural position can
produce harm invisible to price-based tests (Khan, 2017) and Birch’s
analysis of rent through control rights (Birch, 2020) indicate
where an analogous invisibility arises in other legal fields, and the paper draws
no doctrinal conclusion from either. Manski’s partial-identification discipline
governs the reporting of the quantities the valuation tier would need
(Manski, 1990).

| @>p3.1cmYY@

Resource	Supplies	Constraint imposed
Jural relations	Eight distinguished positions; relational and act-indexed	The first proposition is an application, not a discovery
Numerus clausus	Standardization of property forms; third-party information costs	A reason for caution about a new form, not an argument that none is possible
Enclosure	The category and vocabulary for extension of rights over intangibles	A new exclusion right here would instance what the category describes
Commons and infrastructure	Arrangements that are neither exclusion rights nor nothing	No design principle transfers
Causation in legal reasoning	Cause as a selection among conditions; intervening conduct	No doctrinal claim about attribution rules
Chance and future consequences	A reduced probability as a distinct object of valuation	The structure only; no doctrinal claim
Reliance and expectation	Several distinct measures of one disturbance	The tier structure is not derived from it
Corrective justice	Repair correlative to injury	Correlativity is what the lower tiers cannot supply
Reparations without a measure	Criteria that survive when the juridical measure fails	Not a licence to abandon measurement where it is available
Restorative justice	Restoration to a position from which one can participate	Processes reproduce asymmetry where parties enter unequally
Fiduciary structure	Duties attached to a relation without property in its object	Structural only; no doctrinal claim
Capability	Opportunity rather than achievement as the affected object	Specification choices are unavoidable
Relational equality and non-domination	Why holdings do not settle a question about discretion	No verdict on any arrangement
Epistemic injustice	Disadvantage in the capacity of a knower	Does not establish that this occurs
Exploitation theory	The diagnostic whose satisfaction would make a case a candidate	Structural disadvantage must not imply a legal category
Partial identification	Reporting a consistent set rather than a point	A set containing zero supports no valuation
Regulatory record	Verified staged dates	No conclusion about content, adequacy, or effect

Table. Analytical resources, what each supplies, and the constraint each
imposes on the paper’s claims. No entry supports a claim about the law of any
jurisdiction.

4. Six Theses

This section argues the paper’s six theses, each with argument, strongest known
objection, and reply. The section makes no use of the formal results and is not
used by them.

4.1 Non-Protection Is Not Permission

That a legal system supplies no exclusion right over generative organizations
settles one jural relation. It does not establish that anyone may use anyone’s
generative organization, and the inference from the first to the second is
invalid on structural grounds.

Argument. The absence of a claim-right in one party is the presence of a
privilege in another. A privilege is the absence of a duty, and it is indexed to
a pair of parties, to an act, and to the body of law under which the duty would
have arisen; it is also compatible with someone holding a power to change the
position. Each of these indices is a place where the inference to a general
permission can fail, and Proposition ? shows that all five
failures are independent.

The thesis answers the question on which the research discussion closed. Deciding
not to create a property right in generativity is a decision about one
instrument. It is not a decision that appropriating another party’s generative
organization is permissible, because permissibility is settled by the whole set
of relations between the parties and not by the absence of one of them.

Strongest objection. This is a lawyer’s point about vocabulary. In
practice, if nothing forbids an act, the act may be done; the residual liberty is
what a legal system leaves when it has finished forbidding, and dressing it in
Hohfeldian terminology does not change what a party may in fact do.

Reply. The objection is right that residual liberty exists and wrong
that the analysis is about vocabulary. The point is that the antecedent is almost
never established. “Nothing forbids the act” is a claim about every body of law
and every counterparty and every variant of the act, and what is actually
established in these arguments is that one body of law supplies no exclusion right
against one form of use. The distance between those two is where the argument
lives, and it is the distance the proposition measures.

4.2 The Object Is a Present Position

The legally tractable object is a presently existing generative position — the
organization held, the conditions available, the trajectory under way, and the
options presently open — rather than the specific future developments a party
would have realized.

Argument. The future-oriented object is unavailable for a reason that is
stronger than ordinary evidentiary difficulty. A claim about lost profit is
uncertain about the magnitude a known undertaking would have produced. A claim
about foreclosed generative development is uncertain about which undertakings
would have existed, and a companion project establishes that the foreclosed set
is bounded rather than identified, precisely because its members generated no
evidence.

The present position is a different object. It is partly observable: a research
programme has collaborators, equipment, preliminary results, and an institutional
place; a practice has records, tools, channels, and standing. A claim that these
were materially worsened is a claim about a present state, and the counterfactual
it requires is a comparison of present states rather than a projection of
unrealized ones.

The example the research discussion used makes the difference concrete. It may be
impossible to establish that a student would have produced a particular result.
It may be considerably easier to establish that the student had an ongoing
programme with a concrete opportunity structure, and that the structure was
impaired.

Strongest objection. The substitution smuggles the future back in. A
position is valuable only because of what it makes possible, so impairing a
position is an injury only if the possibilities mattered, and assessing whether
they mattered requires exactly the future-directed judgment the substitution was
supposed to avoid.

Reply. Conceded and located. The substitution reduces the counterfactual
burden and does not remove it: what remains is a comparison of present states,
which requires a view about what the position would have been, and
Section 9 records this as a residual burden rather than a solved
problem. What the substitution buys is that the comparison ranges over states
that existed or would have existed at a time rather than over developments that
were never undertaken, and the identification problem for the second is strictly
worse than for the first.

4.3 Injury and Valuation Come Apart

Whether a generative position was impaired, whether the impairment raised the
risk of losing future trajectories, and what those trajectories were worth are
three claims in a strict entailment chain with nested evidentiary requirements. A
legal system may recognize the first without the third, and a rule that requires
the third in order to recognize the first is making a choice rather than
respecting a constraint.

Argument. Proposition ? states the chain and the nesting.
The substance is that the three claims are not degrees of confidence about one
proposition but distinct propositions, and that establishing the strongest
requires everything the weaker ones require and more.

The consequence the paper regards as important is architectural. If the
recognition of an injury is conditioned on proof at the valuation tier, then
injuries established at the impairment tier are not merely under-remedied; they
are invisible, because the question whether they occurred is never reached. That
is a property of the conditioning and not of the injuries, and separating the
tiers is what makes it possible to say so.

The observation that a legal system can recognize several distinct measures of
one disturbance, with different justificatory weight attaching to each, is not
new (Fuller & Perdue, 1936), and the treatment of a reduced probability as an
object in its own right rather than as weak evidence about an outcome is an
established analytical move (King, 1981). The paper’s tiers are a
different partition and are not derived from either.

Strongest objection. A recognized injury with no measurable consequence
is an invitation to litigation about nothing. Legal systems require quantifiable
harm partly to keep the number of actionable disturbances finite, and separating
the tiers removes that limit while supplying no replacement.

Reply. The concern is real and the reply is that the limiting work is
done elsewhere. What bounds the category is not the measurability of consequences
but the conditions of the diagnostic — standing, an admissible comparison, a
material impairment, and a benefit running through it — and
Zwolinski’s constraint that structural disadvantage must not by itself constitute
the category (Zwolinski, 2012). A system that limits by measurability
limits by an accident of what is measurable, which selects against exactly the
injuries this programme studies.

4.4 The Bundle Is Not an Exclusion Right

The candidate interests are pairwise independent, and an exclusive right to
exclude others from using a generative organization is neither necessary nor
sufficient for any of them. The appropriate instrument is an assembly of
protections drawn from existing relations, not a new property form.

Argument. Proposition ? establishes the independence and
the double failure of the exclusion right by exhibiting configurations. Three
further considerations support the conclusion.

Standardization of property forms exists partly to limit the information costs
imposed on third parties who must ascertain what they may do
(Merrill & Smith, 2000). A form whose object is not identified from any record
— which is what a companion project establishes about a generative organization
— is a form whose boundaries no third party could ascertain.

A new exclusion right over generative organizations would be an instance of the
extension of property over formerly common material that the enclosure literature
describes (Boyle, 2003), so proposing it as a remedy for the
programme’s harms would produce the harm it treats.

And the alternative is not nothing. Duties can attach to the structure of a
relation without property in its object (Frankel, 1983), and shared
resources can be governed by arrangements that are neither exclusion rights nor
absence of governance (Ostrom, 1990; Hess & Ostrom, 2007; Frischmann, 2012).

Strongest objection. An assembly of protections drawn from several bodies
of law is expensive, uneven, and available only to parties who can afford to
assemble it. A single right is crude and usable. Preferring elegance to usability
is a familiar academic error and this may be an instance.

Reply. The objection identifies a real cost and the paper does not
answer it, because answering it requires exactly the doctrinal and institutional
work Section 7 records as undischarged. What the paper can say
is that the crude instrument does not do the job: Proposition ?
shows that the exclusion right is not sufficient for any interest in the bundle,
so the choice is not between an expensive complete instrument and a cheap
adequate one.

4.5 Remedies Divide by What They Specify

Remedies whose content is a state of affairs are determinable from
impairment-level facts together with a specification of the target state.
Remedies whose content is a sum require the valuation tier. A repertoire
consisting only of the second can address none of the injuries this programme
identifies.

Argument. Proposition ? states the partition. The
constructive consequence is that the unavailability of valuation is not the end of
the analysis, because a substantial class of remedies never needed it: a
declaration that an impairment occurred, a correction of attribution, an order
restoring access on stated terms, an order requiring portability, a forbearance,
a disclosure.

The paper states the counterweight in the same breath, because it is the
programme’s own finding. A state-specifying remedy fixes an arrangement, and
fixing an arrangement is a way of foreclosing: an order restoring access
converts a living arrangement into a specified one, which the repository records
as an unresolved tension between excessive enclosure and unconsented capture. So
availability at the lower tier is not innocence at the lower tier, and a remedy of
this kind requires its own justification rather than inheriting one from the
injury.

Strongest objection. Non-monetary remedies are the ones legal systems
grant most reluctantly, because they require ongoing supervision, they bind
parties to relations they wish to exit, and they place courts in the position of
administering arrangements. Recommending the class that is hardest to obtain is
not a constructive contribution.

Reply. The paper recommends nothing and states an availability result:
the content of these remedies is determinable where the content of a sum is not.
Whether a system grants them, and at what institutional cost, is a question
Section 7 records as requiring verification the paper has not
performed. The observation stands independently: a system that grants only sums
has, for these injuries, no remedy whose content it could compute.

4.6 Jurisdiction-Indexing Is Not Optional

Results about the structure of jural relations hold across legal systems because
they concern structure. Every claim about what is protected, permitted, required,
or remedied is jurisdiction-indexed and time-indexed. Writing that moves between
the two registers without marking the move is the characteristic failure of this
subject.

Argument. The four propositions of Section 5 are
conditional on definitions and hold wherever the definitions apply. They say
nothing about whether any system in fact recognizes any interest, and nothing
about what any court would do.

The failure the thesis names is easy to commit and hard to detect, because an
analytic result and a doctrinal claim can be stated in the same sentence form.
“The absence of an exclusion right does not entail permission” is analytic.
“Parties may therefore be liable in confidence” is doctrinal, jurisdiction-
indexed, and time-indexed, and this paper does not assert it or its negation.

The thesis is also the reason for Section 7. Stating what a
doctrinal claim would require is the only way a paper that makes none can be
useful to a project that will eventually need them.

Strongest objection. Then the paper is of no use to anyone with a
problem. A framework that identifies invalid inferences without saying what any
system does leaves every practical question exactly where it found it.

Reply. Partly conceded. The paper’s use is negative and specific: it
removes a class of arguments from circulation, identifies which claims a
subsequent doctrinal project must establish, and shows that one natural
instrument would be self-defeating. Whether that is worth a paper is a fair
question, and the alternative — doctrinal assertion without verification — is
one the repository’s protocol forbids and the portfolio entry specifically warns
against.

4.7 Dependence Structure Among the Theses

Rejecting Thesis ? restores the inference from non-protection to
permission and answers the research discussion’s closing question the wrong way.
Rejecting Thesis ? returns the object of protection to unrealized
futures and to a counterfactual burden the programme’s identification results show
cannot be met. Rejecting Thesis ? makes valuation a condition of
recognition and renders impairment-level injuries invisible. Rejecting
Thesis ? makes a new exclusion right the natural proposal.
Rejecting Thesis ? leaves the analysis with no remedy whose content
is determinable. Rejecting Thesis ? permits the paper’s
analytic results to be read as claims about law.

Theses ? and ? are load-bearing: the first is the
paper’s answer to the question the programme ended on, and the second is what
makes a legal analysis possible at all given the identification results.
Thesis ? is the most contestable, since its strongest objection —
that a recognized injury with no measurable consequence has no limiting principle
— is answered by relocating the limit rather than by supplying one the law
could apply.

5. Formal Results

This section declares the objects and proves four propositions. Its objective is
to establish that non-protection does not entail permission, that the proof tiers
are strictly ordered with nested evidence, that the interest bundle is not
generated by an exclusion right, and that remedies divide by what their content
requires. The section cites no thesis, and no result asserts anything about the
law of any jurisdiction.

5.1 Jural Positions

For parties $A,B$, an act description $\varphi$, and a body of law $L$, write:
$\mathrm{R}{L}(A,B,\varphi)$ for “$A$ has a claim-right under $L$ that $B$
perform $\varphi$”; $\mathrm{D}{L}(B,A,\varphi)$ for “$B$ has a duty under $L$
to $A$ to perform $\varphi$”; $\mathrm{Pv}{L}(B,A,\varphi)$ for “$B$ has a
privilege under $L$ as against $A$ of performing $\varphi$”; and
$\mathrm{Im}{L}(B,A,\varphi)$ for “$B$ has an immunity under $L$ against $A$’s
altering $B$’s position with respect to $\varphi$”. The correlativity and
opposition relations are

$$\mathrm{R}{L}(A,B,\varphi)\leftrightarrow\mathrm{D}{L}(B,A,\varphi),
\qquad
\mathrm{Pv}{L}(B,A,\varphi)\leftrightarrow\neg\mathrm{D}{L}(B,A,\neg\varphi).$$

5.2 Non-Protection Does Not Entail Permission

Let $L_{0}$ be a body of law, $A$ and $B$ parties, and $\varphi$ an act. Suppose
$\neg\mathrm{R}{L{0}}(A,B,\neg\varphi)$: $A$ has no claim-right under $L_{0}$
that $B$ refrain from $\varphi$. Then $\mathrm{Pv}{L{0}}(B,A,\varphi)$, and
none of the following follows.

• Claim-right. $\mathrm{R}{L{0}}(B,A,\varphi)$: that $A$ has a duty not to interfere with $B$’s $\varphi$-ing.
• Immunity. $\mathrm{Im}{L{0}}(B,A,\varphi)$: that no party holds a power to alter $B$’s position.
• Party generality. $\mathrm{Pv}{L{0}}(B,C,\varphi)$ for $C\neq A$.
• Act generality. $\mathrm{Pv}{L{0}}(B,A,\psi)$ for $\psi\neq\varphi$.
• Source generality. $\mathrm{Pv}{L}(B,A,\varphi)$ for $L\neq L{0}$.

Moreover the five failures are independent: for each, there is a configuration in
which that one fails and the other four hold.

The first conjunct is Definition ?: no claim-right in $A$ that
$B$ refrain is no duty in $B$ to refrain, which is a privilege in $B$.
(1) Privilege and claim-right are distinct positions with distinct correlatives,
duty being the correlative of a right and no-right of a privilege; a privilege in
$B$ correlates with a no-right in $A$ and entails no duty in $A$.
(2) Privilege and immunity are distinct, immunity correlating with disability and
privilege with no-right; a party may hold a power to create a duty in $B$ while
$B$ presently has none.
(3) and (4) hold because positions in Definition ? are indexed
to a counterparty and an act description, so nothing about the pair
$(A,\varphi)$ constrains $(C,\varphi)$ or $(A,\psi)$.
(5) holds because positions are indexed to a body of law, and duties under
distinct bodies are independent.
Independence: for (1), let $B$ have a privilege that $A$ may lawfully frustrate,
with all indices otherwise general. For (2), let $B$’s privilege be general in
party, act, and source while a legislature holds a power to impose a duty. For
(3), let $B$’s privilege hold against $A$ by $A$’s consent while $C$ holds a
right. For (4), let $B$’s privilege cover reading a work but not distributing it.
For (5), let no exclusion right exist while a duty of confidence does.

An argument from “generative organizations are not protected by an exclusion
right” to “anyone may use anyone’s generative organization” asserts the
conclusion of at least clauses (1), (3), (4), and (5) simultaneously, from a
premise that establishes none of them.

The corollary is the paper’s answer to the question on which the research
discussion closed, and its force is that the four failures are separable. An
interlocutor who repairs one of them — by establishing, say, that the privilege
is general in party — has established nothing about the others.

Two things the proposition does not show. It does not show that any duty in fact
exists under any body of law; establishing that is a doctrinal claim and
Section 7 states what it would require. And it does not show
that the residual liberty is empty: where every index is in fact general, the
permission conclusion holds, and the proposition’s content is that this is a
conjunction of five claims rather than a restatement of the premise.

5.3 Proof Tiers Are Strictly Ordered

Fix parties $X,Y$, a time $t$, and an admissible alternative arrangement $b$.
Write

$$\pi_{1} &: \text{$X$’s conduct materially worsened $Y$’s generative position at
$t$ relative to $b$;}\
\pi_{2} &: \text{$\pi_{1}$, and that worsening raised the probability that $Y$
fails to reach some future trajectory $\tau$;}\
\pi_{3} &: \text{$\pi_{2}$, and the trajectories $Y$ thereby fails to reach have
value $v$.}$$

Write $\mathrm{Ev}(\pi)$ for a minimal set of facts sufficient to establish
$\pi$.

$\pi_{3}\models\pi_{2}\models\pi_{1}$, and neither converse holds. Consequently
$\mathrm{Ev}(\pi_{1})\subseteq\mathrm{Ev}(\pi_{2})\subseteq\mathrm{Ev}(\pi_{3})$,
and the inclusions are strict whenever the converse entailments fail.

The entailments hold by construction, each claim conjoining its predecessor. For
the failure of $\pi_{1}\models\pi_{2}$: a worsening may leave every trajectory’s
probability unchanged, as when the impaired conditions are not on any path to
$\tau$. For the failure of $\pi_{2}\models\pi_{3}$: a raised probability of
failing to reach a trajectory is consistent with the trajectory having no
determinate value, and a companion project establishes that the foreclosed set is
bracketed by non-coinciding bounds, so $v$ need not exist as a point. Nesting
follows because any facts sufficient for a conjunction are sufficient for each
conjunct.

Under a rule recognizing an injury only where $\pi_{3}$ is established,
configurations satisfying $\pi_{1}$ and not $\pi_{3}$ are not recognized. Since
$\pi_{1}\not\models\pi_{3}$, this class is nonempty whenever $\pi_{1}$ is
satisfiable at all.

The corollary is an observation about rule architecture and not a criticism of any
system. Its interest is that the suppressed class is exactly the class this
programme studies: the identification results establish that foreclosed
repertoires are bounded rather than valued, so $\pi_{3}$ will characteristically
be unavailable where $\pi_{1}$ holds. Reporting a bounded quantity as a set rather
than a point is the standard discipline (Manski, 1990), and a rule
demanding a point is demanding what the discipline says is unavailable.

5.4 The Bundle Is Not Generated by an Exclusion Right

Let $=\attr,conf,port,part,ben,
acc,nfor$ denote interests in, respectively, attribution,
confidentiality, portability, participation, benefit sharing, access, and
non-foreclosure. Let $\mathsf{excl}$ denote an exclusive right in $Y$ to exclude
others from using $Y$’s generative organization.

For every ordered pair $(i,j)$ of distinct members of $\Ii$ there is a
configuration satisfying $i$ and violating $j$. Moreover, for every $i\in\Ii$,
$\mathsf{excl}$ is neither necessary nor sufficient for $i$.

Independence is established by exhibiting configurations, of which four suffice to
generate the rest by permutation of roles. A work is attributed correctly and
cannot be exported from the system holding it: $\mathsf{attr}$ without
$\mathsf{port}$. A participant is granted access and no voice in the governance
of the resource: $\mathsf{acc}$ without $\mathsf{part}$. A contributor receives a
share of proceeds while the arrangement contracts what the practice can become:
$\mathsf{ben}$ without $\mathsf{nfor}$. A relation is kept confidential while
authorship is misassigned within it: $\mathsf{conf}$ without $\mathsf{attr}$.

Non-necessity: each interest is satisfiable without $\mathsf{excl}$, since each
can be secured by a duty running to $Y$ — of acknowledgment, of confidence, of
interoperation, of consultation, of accounting, of provision, of forbearance —
none of which requires a right in $Y$ to exclude.

Non-sufficiency: $\mathsf{excl}$ is compatible with the violation of each. A
holder of an exclusive right may be denied attribution by a licensee’s practice,
may have the organization disclosed by a third party under no duty of confidence,
may be unable to export it from an infrastructure it does not control, may be
excluded from governance of the resource on which it depends, may receive no
share where it has licensed for a fixed sum, may lose access to conditions held by
another, and may find its own future development foreclosed by a party expanding a
similar organization faster.

No single instrument in the family of exclusion rights generates the bundle, so
protection of any subset requires an assembly of distinct relations. In
particular, declining to create $\mathsf{excl}$ leaves every member of $\Ii$
available for separate treatment.

Corollary ? is the constructive counterpart of
Corollary ?: the first says that the absence of an exclusion
right settles nothing about permission, and the second says it settles nothing
about protection either. The standardization consideration
(Merrill & Smith, 2000) and the enclosure category (Boyle, 2003)
supply independent reasons against introducing the form, and the paper takes no
position on whether any particular assembled protection should exist.

5.5 Remedies Divide by What Their Content Requires

A remedy is state-specifying if its content is a description of an
arrangement to be brought about or maintained — a declaration, a correction of
attribution, an order to restore access on stated terms, an order to provide
portability, a forbearance, an order to disclose. A remedy is
sum-specifying if its content is a quantity of value.

The content of a state-specifying remedy is determined by $\pi_{1}$ together with
a specification of the target arrangement. The content of a sum-specifying remedy
requires $\pi_{3}$.

A state-specifying remedy’s content is a description of an arrangement; what
$\pi_{1}$ supplies is that the present position was worsened relative to an
admissible alternative, and the alternative is a description of an arrangement.
No valuation enters. A sum-specifying remedy’s content is a quantity; by
Definition ? the quantity is the value of what was not reached,
which is $\pi_{3}$.

In a system whose remedial repertoire contains only sum-specifying remedies, no
injury satisfying $\pi_{1}$ and not $\pi_{3}$ admits a remedy whose content the
system can determine.

A state-specifying remedy fixes an arrangement. Where the arrangement fixed is
one on which other parties’ development depends, the remedy is itself a
restriction of what that arrangement can become, and requires justification on
its own terms rather than inheriting justification from the injury.

Corollary ? is the paper’s own finding turned against its
constructive suggestion, and it is stated because the repository records the
tension it instances as unresolved: strong protection of a shared resource can
suppress what the resource was for. The corollary does not defeat
Proposition ?, which is an availability result; it denies that
availability settles desirability.

6. The Interest Bundle and Countermodels

This section presents the candidate interests with their objects and the relation
that would carry each, and then exhibits five countermodels. Its objective is to
make the assembly concrete without asserting that any legal system contains any
of it.

6.1 Interests, Objects, and Carrying Relations

Table 2 lists each candidate interest against the object it
concerns, the jural position that would carry it, and the specific difficulty it
raises. Every entry is a specification of a question. No entry asserts that any
system recognizes any interest, and the fourth column exists so that the table
cannot be read as a proposal.

| @>p2.3cm>p2.3cm>p2.2cmYY@

Interest	Object	Carrying position	Principal difficulty	What a claim would require
Attribution	Trace and trajectory	Duty of acknowledgment	Attribution degrades along joint development	A determinate contribution record at a stated time
Confidentiality	Latent organization	Duty of confidence	The organization is not identified from any record	A specified disclosure and a relation that carried the duty
Portability	Trajectory and infrastructure	Duty to enable transfer	Formats and dependencies are controlled by the counterparty	A specified target environment and a feasible transfer
Participation	Practice and governance	Power over rules, or immunity	Participation and standing come apart	A specified decision and a ground of standing in it
Benefit sharing	Trace and organization	Duty to account	The share presupposes an attribution the record does not fix	An agreed or determinable basis of division
Access	Realization infrastructure	Duty to provide, or a liberty	An access duty fixes an arrangement	A specified condition, terms, and duration
Non-foreclosure	Reachable option space	Duty to forbear	The foreclosed set is bounded, not identified	A witness trajectory and an admissible alternative

Table. Candidate generative interests, the object each concerns, the jural
position that would carry it, and the difficulty each raises. No row asserts that
any legal system recognizes any interest.

6.2 Countermodels

No exclusion right exists over a generative organization, and a duty of
confidence arising from a relation forbids a particular party from using what it
learned in that relation.

Clause (5) of Proposition ? in a single configuration. The
absence of the first relation is compatible with the presence of the second, and
the countermodel is stated as a possibility rather than as a description of any
system.

A party’s ongoing programme loses equipment access, collaborators, and
institutional standing through another party’s conduct. Which developments it
would have undertaken is undetermined, and no value can be assigned.

Here $\pi_{1}$ holds and $\pi_{3}$ fails, so by
Corollary ? a compensation-only repertoire has no remedy
whose content it can determine, and by Proposition ? a
state-specifying remedy does.

A party can demonstrate that a described future development would have been
valuable, and its present position is unchanged.

The countermodel exists to keep the tier ordering from being read as a claim that
valuation evidence is strong evidence of impairment. The tiers are conjunctive,
so a demonstration bearing on value alone establishes no conjunct of $\pi_{1}$.

A party holds an exclusive right over its generative organization. Attribution is
misassigned in practice, the organization is disclosed by a stranger to any
confidential relation, it cannot be exported from the infrastructure on which it
was built, its holder has no voice in the governance of that infrastructure, it
was licensed for a fixed sum, its holder has lost access to the relevant
conditions, and a faster party has foreclosed its remaining developments.

Non-sufficiency in a single configuration, and the countermodel is the paper’s
main argument against the natural proposal.

An order restores a party’s access to a shared resource on stated terms. The
terms fix what the resource may become, and other participants’ developments are
thereby constrained.

Corollary ? in a single configuration. It is included because
the paper’s constructive suggestion is the thing it constrains.

7. Research Obligations

This section states what any doctrinal claim in this area would require. Its
objective is to convert the portfolio’s recorded readiness deficit into a
specification, so that the absence of doctrinal content is visible and a
subsequent project has a target. The paper makes none of the claims below.

Claim: that a named legal system protects any of the four objects.
Required: primary sources in that system, identified by instrument and
provision, with a stated date of currency, and an account of how the object is
characterized there. Not substitutable by: secondary summaries,
comparative generalizations, or this paper’s analytic results.

Claim: that a party in a described configuration could bring any claim.
Required: the elements of the claim in the named system, an account of
which facts would satisfy each element, and the standing rules.
Not substitutable by: the observation that an interest exists, or that
another system recognizes a similar claim.

Claim: that any of $\pi_{1}$, $\pi_{2}$, or $\pi_{3}$ meets a system’s
threshold. Required: the applicable standard, its treatment of
counterfactual and probabilistic evidence, and its treatment of quantum as an
element or as a separate question. Not substitutable by: the analytic
ordering of Proposition ?, which is silent about thresholds.

Claim: that a state-specifying remedy is available. Required:
the system’s rules on that remedy, including its discretionary conditions,
supervision requirements, and limits. Not substitutable by:
Proposition ?, which establishes determinability of content and
not availability.

Claim: that systems converge or diverge on any of the above.
Required: a stated selection of systems, a stated basis of comparison,
and the underlying claims discharged separately for each.
Not substitutable by: a claim about international instruments, or by the
staged dates of any regulatory record (Commission, 2026).

Two remarks. The obligations are demanding, and they are demanding symmetrically:
a claim that a legal system supplies no protection passes through
Obligations ? and ? exactly as a claim that it does,
which is a consequence of Proposition ?. And they are not a
counsel of despair, since the propositions of Section 5 are
established without any of them.

8. Open Questions

This section records what the project leaves unresolved, by register.

8.1 Analytical

Proposition ? treats powers only through clause (2). A full
treatment would model how positions change — who may create duties, on what
occasions, and with what notice — which is where a privilege becomes practically
secure or insecure. The dynamics are not worked out.

Clause (4) turns on act-indexing, and nothing here says how act descriptions are
individuated. Since a coarse description makes privileges general and a fine one
makes them narrow, the clause’s force depends on a question the paper does not
address.

Thesis ? substitutes a present position for a future one and
concedes that establishing impairment still requires a comparison with what the
position would have been. How much that reduces the burden, and whether it
reduces it enough for any workable standard, is unresolved and is the paper’s
most important analytical gap.

Where a downstream party acts under upstream pressure, allocation of
responsibility requires an account of intervening voluntary conduct and of the
conditions against which a cause is selected (Hart & Honor, 1985). The
programme’s propagation project supplies a causal contrast; connecting it to any
allocation rule is not attempted here.

8.2 Institutional

Whether an assembled protection is available to parties who cannot afford to
assemble it is the strongest practical objection to
Thesis ?, and the paper does not answer it.

Whether duties attached to relational structure (Frankel, 1983) can
be extended to the configurations this programme studies, in which the parties may
stand in no relation at all, is open and is the point at which the fiduciary
template most plausibly fails.

Whether governance arrangements that are neither exclusion rights nor absence of
governance (Ostrom, 1990; Hess & Ostrom, 2007; Frischmann, 2012)
can carry any member of the bundle is untested.

8.3 Normative

Whether a legal system should recognize an injury it cannot value is not settled
here. Corollary ? shows that a system conditioning
recognition on valuation suppresses a nonempty class; whether it ought not to is a
further question involving costs the paper does not weigh.

Whether the forward-looking structural model (Young, 2006) or a
liability model is the appropriate form for allocations in this area depends on
facts about anticipation and control that the framework deliberately does not
require.

Whether a party unable to establish what was done to it is thereby wronged in its
capacity as a knower (Fricker, 2007), and whether that supplies an
independent ground for disclosure duties, is noted and not pursued.

8.4 Doctrinal

The whole doctrinal register is open. Section 7 states the
five obligations, and none is discharged. A subsequent project would need to
choose a jurisdiction, fix a date, and work through them in order.

9. Limits and Revisable Research Program

This section states what the paper contributes, what would defeat it, and what it
has not done.

9.1 Contributions

The analytical contribution is the decomposition of the inference from
non-protection to permission into five separable failures, which answers the
question on which the source discussion closed.

The conceptual contribution is the substitution of a presently existing
generative position for unrealized futures as the object of a claim, together
with the honest accounting of what the substitution does and does not buy.

The structural contribution is the tier ordering with its architectural
corollary: conditioning the recognition of injury on valuation suppresses a
nonempty class, and does so as a property of the rule rather than of the
injuries.

The instrumental contribution is the double failure of the exclusion right,
which converts the natural proposal in this area into one the paper argues
against on three independent grounds.

The remedial contribution is the partition by what a remedy’s content requires,
with the counterweight that lower-tier availability is not lower-tier innocence.

The methodological contribution is the five research obligations, stated
symmetrically for claims that a system does and does not protect.

9.2 Defeat Conditions

The first result loses support only if the jural positions are not distinct, which
would be a rejection of the framework rather than of this application; more
realistically, it loses practical force if the indices are in fact general in the
configurations of interest, which is an empirical question about legal systems the
paper does not address.

The object substitution loses support if a present generative position cannot be
individuated without reference to the futures it makes possible, in which case the
counterfactual burden returns in full.

The tier ordering loses support if $\pi_{1}$ is not satisfiable independently of
$\pi_{3}$ — if every material worsening of a position is accompanied by a
determinable value — which the programme’s identification results make
implausible but do not exclude.

The bundle result loses support if the configurations exhibited in
Proposition ? are legally impossible rather than merely
describable, which is a doctrinal question the paper does not settle.

The remedial partition loses support if state-specifying remedies in fact require
valuation to determine their terms, which is plausible for some of them and is not
argued either way here.

9.3 Development Status

The portfolio records this project as the least publication-ready of the ten, on
the ground that every doctrinal claim, authority, remedy, and statement of current
legal status requires verification, and recommends narrowing to analytic
jurisprudence or a single jurisdiction.

The narrowing has been performed and the deficit is not discharged so much as
excluded from scope. The verified corpus stands at thirty-three entries. No
doctrinal claim is made and none of the five research obligations is discharged.
The paper is therefore a preliminary analytic contribution with an explicit
specification of what a doctrinal successor would require, which is what the
source discussion asked for when it requested a jurisprudence part framed as open
questions and preliminary propositions.

Three threads deferred from companion projects are carried here and remain
unresolved: the jurisprudential form of the claim that originating a resource does
not license restructuring others’ trajectories; the legal form of restitution
where something has been institutionally detached from a participant; and the
custodial and fiduciary duties a companion project treats structurally.
Section 8 records the first as part of the residual counterfactual
problem, the second under attribution, and the third under the institutional
questions.

9.4 The Conservative Position

Stated as conservatively as the arguments permit: declining to create an exclusive
right over generative organizations settles one jural relation and neither
permits use nor leaves the interests unprotectable; the object a claim can
practically take is a presently existing position rather than an unrealized
future, which reduces a counterfactual burden without removing it; whether an
injury occurred and what its consequences were worth are different questions with
nested requirements, so a rule that demands the second in order to reach the first
suppresses a class it never examines; no exclusion right generates the interests
at issue, and each would have to be carried by a distinct relation; and the
remedies whose content can be determined at the lower tier are the ones that
specify an arrangement rather than a sum, which are also the ones that fix an
arrangement and therefore require justification of their own.

None of this states the law of any jurisdiction, and the paper’s final commitment
is that it should not be read as doing so.

References

Elizabeth S. Anderson. What is the point of equality? Ethics, 109(2):287–337, 1999.

Yochai Benkler. The Wealth of Networks: How Social Production Transforms Markets and Freedom. Yale University Press, New Haven, CT, 2006.

Kean Birch. Technoscience rent: Toward a theory of rentiership for technoscientific capitalism. Science, Technology, & Human Values, 45(1):3–33, 2020.

James Boyle. The second enclosure movement and the construction of the public domain. Law and Contemporary Problems, 66(1–2):33–74, 2003.

John Braithwaite. Restorative Justice and Responsive Regulation. Oxford University Press, New York, 2002. The Oxford University Press record consulted gives the print ISBN 9780195136395; Crossref indexes the volume under 2001.

Pablo de Greiff. Justice and reparations. In Pablo de Greiff, editor, The Handbook of Reparations, pages 451–472. Oxford University Press, Oxford, 2006.

European Commission. Regulatory framework for AI. Shaping Europe’s Digital Future, European Commission, 2026. Records that Regulation (EU) 2024/1689 entered into force on 1 August 2024 and became applicable on 2 August 2026, with prohibited-practice rules from 2 February 2025, governance and general-purpose model obligations from 2 August 2025, and obligations for systems used in employment and other listed high-risk areas from 2 December 2027. Consulted 16 August 2026.

Tamar Frankel. Fiduciary law. California Law Review, 71(3):795–836, 1983.

Miranda Fricker. Epistemic Injustice: Power and the Ethics of Knowing. Oxford University Press, Oxford, 2007.

Brett M. Frischmann. Infrastructure: The Social Value of Shared Resources. Oxford University Press, New York, 2012.

L. L. Fuller and William R. Perdue. The reliance interest in contract damages: 1. The Yale Law Journal, 46(1):52–96, 1936.

H. L. A. Hart and Tony Honoré. Causation in the Law. Clarendon Press, Oxford, 2 edition, 1985. The Oxford Academic book record confirms title, second edition, and publisher; edition, year, and pagination were confirmed against a contemporaneous review record in the Cambridge Law Journal.

Charlotte Hess and Elinor Ostrom, editors. Understanding Knowledge as a Commons: From Theory to Practice. MIT Press, Cambridge, MA, 2007.

Wesley Newcomb Hohfeld. Some fundamental legal conceptions as applied in judicial reasoning. The Yale Law Journal, 23(1):16, 1913. The Crossref record supplies the first page only.

Wesley Newcomb Hohfeld. Fundamental legal conceptions as applied in judicial reasoning. The Yale Law Journal, 26(8):710, 1917. The Crossref record supplies the first page only.

Lina M. Khan. Amazon’s antitrust paradox. The Yale Law Journal, 126:710–805, 2017.

Joseph H. King. Causation, valuation, and chance in personal injury torts involving preexisting conditions and future consequences. The Yale Law Journal, 90(6):1353, 1981. The Crossref record supplies the first page only.

Charles F. Manski. Nonparametric bounds on treatment effects. The American Economic Review, 80(2):319–323, May 1990. Papers and Proceedings.

Thomas W. Merrill and Henry E. Smith. Optimal standardization in the law of property: The numerus clausus principle. The Yale Law Journal, 110(1):1, 2000. The Crossref record supplies the first page only.

Martha C. Nussbaum. Women and Human Development: The Capabilities Approach. The Seeley Lectures. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 2000.

Elinor Ostrom. Governing the Commons: The Evolution of Institutions for Collective Action. Canto Classics. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 2015. Canto Classics reissue; originally published in 1990.

Philip Pettit. Republicanism: A Theory of Freedom and Government. Oxford Political Theory. Oxford University Press, Oxford, 1997.

John Rawls. A Theory of Justice. Harvard University Press, Cambridge, MA, revised edition, 1999.

Ingrid Robeyns. The capability approach: A theoretical survey. Journal of Human Development, 6(1):93–117, 2005.

John E. Roemer. A General Theory of Exploitation and Class. Harvard University Press, Cambridge, MA, 1982.

Paul M. Romer. Endogenous technological change. Journal of Political Economy, 98(5, Part 2):S71–S102, 1990.

Amartya Sen. Capability and well-being. In Martha C. Nussbaum and Amartya Sen, editors, The Quality of Life, pages 30–53. Oxford University Press, Oxford, 1993.

Nicholas Vrousalis. Exploitation, vulnerability, and social domination. Philosophy & Public Affairs, 41(2):131–157, 2013.

Ernest J. Weinrib. The Idea of Private Law. Oxford University Press, Oxford, 2012. Revised edition; originally published by Harvard University Press in 1995.

Alan Wertheimer. Exploitation. Princeton University Press, Princeton, NJ, 1996.

Gabriel Wollner. Anonymous exploitation: Non-individual, non-agential and structural. Review of Social Economy, 77(2):143–162, 2019.

Iris Marion Young. Responsibility and global justice: A social connection model. Social Philosophy and Policy, 23(1):102–130, 2006.

Matt Zwolinski. Structural exploitation. Social Philosophy and Policy, 29(1):154–179, 2012.