The margin for
human control.
Test whether a rollback package holds below a fixed frontier reference, or leaves a route back to recursive capability growth.
Can retained technology stay below the point where it regenerates what we intended to prevent?
Inspect the model ↗Evidence supports the pathways. All slider values, coefficients and thresholds are explicit scenario assumptions. Reconstruction results test resource separation. Human-outcome percentages below use the same conditional-risk model as the story edition.
↗Recoverable capability
The weakest barrier matters.
Each route is tested against the strongest modeled actor. Below 1× means the required reserve is missing; below 1/M means resources meet the assumed reconstruction cost.
THE SAME SCENARIO, IN HUMAN TERMS
Human outcomes
See this exact scenario in the story ↗Conditional risks and stopping assumptions
Find where the conclusion changes.
Compare packages, change two controls at once, and see which assumptions matter most.
Stability landscape
Every cell includes all 27 stress cases. Select a cell to apply its controls. Other inputs stay fixed.
What moves the margin?
Changes in the worst resource margin, holding every other input fixed. A wider span means greater local sensitivity.
Shown as log₂ change from the current margin. Controls are clipped at their endpoints. This ranking does not capture every interaction.
An inspectable argument.
Mechanisms grounded in sources. Numerical judgments left open to challenge.
17 September 2026
MODEL SPECIFICATION · V1.0.0Equations, assumptions & limits+
Built from Chet Long’s rollback framework
“A technological plateau for human sovereignty,” updated 13 September 2026. The model carries forward route-specific reconstruction margins, retained substrate, human technical authorship and an enforcement ceiling. It does not model essential-service continuity, political rights or transition harms as interchangeable scores.