C5.2 Staged Transition Pathways
Implementation Viability. Can the system actually be built and sustained?
Pass threshold
Staged (≥4 phases) and rapid (≤36 months) deployment, with specific milestones, resource requirements and risk mitigation, each shown feasible by precedent or component evidence
Clause by clause:
- Staged (≥4 phases)
- rapid (≤36 months) deployment
- specific milestones
- resource requirements
- risk mitigation
Every clause: each shown feasible by precedent or component evidence.
What it asks
Deployable both gradually in stable contexts and rapidly in crisis contexts, each shown feasible rather than only planned.
Why it matters
Revolutions typically produce chaos, reaction, and systems worse than what they replaced. Gradual transformation enables learning and coalition-building. However, post-crisis contexts demand rapid deployment capacity when political windows open briefly.
Staged transition 10 25 years for stable contexts
Phase 1 (Years 1-3): Municipal pilots in receptive jurisdictions. Phase 2 (Years 3-5): Regional expansion with integration testing. Phase 3 (Years 5-10): Multi-jurisdictional coordination. Phase 4 (Years 10-25): National integration and optimization.
Rapid deployment 18 36 months for post crisis contexts
Month 0-6: Emergency legal framework, digital infrastructure. Month 6-12: Universal distribution begins, initial asset acquisition. Month 12-18: System activation, governance establishment. Month 18-36: Stabilization, parameter optimization.
Historical precedents
New Deal (1933-1936): 3 years for comprehensive programs. Marshall Plan (1948-1951): 3 years for economic restructuring. CCO-PTF modeling: Both pathways validated through simulation.
How scores are anchored
1.0, pass
Both a multi-phase gradual plan and a rapid crisis-deployment plan are specified with concrete milestones. CCO-PTF-CIP-SZH (1.0): "Detailed pathways specified for both gradual (10-25 years: municipal pilots → regional → national) and rapid (18-36 months: post-crisis emergency deployment)."
0.5, partial
A pathway is sketched but lacks the specificity (legal framework, resource figures, sequencing) the threshold requires. Market Socialism (0.5): "Can be implemented incrementally through cooperative development, but scaling to the majority of the economy faces challenges. No clear pathway from niche to dominant form."
0.0, structural failure
No operational pathway despite acknowledging transition as necessary, or historical transitions required non-gradual means (revolution, occupation). Integral (0.0): "Despite acknowledging transition as 'the challenge,' the document provides almost no operational pathway... 'starts small and expands' ... That's it." Centrally Planned Socialism (0.0): "Historical transitions required revolution, civil war, or imposition by occupying force."
Judge this on specificity, not on whether a pathway exists in principle — "starts small and expands" is not a pathway under this threshold, however true it may be. v2.0 (Session 45): this criterion's Pass Threshold was restated (R4; NEEC_Criteria_v2_s45.md). The band texts and examples were written against Paper v1.4's threshold: they describe, and the threshold above governs (protocol 2.3(g)). Examples are re-estimated in the rescoring pass.
Normative roots
From N9 (Partial Deployability).
How the systems score
0.5, partial
CCO-PTF-CIP-SZH, Participatory Economics, Integral, Degrowth Economics, Nordic Social Democracy, Market Socialism, Georgism / LVT, Ostrom Commons, Islamic Finance, Mutual Credit / LETS, State Capitalism / Singapore, Universal Basic Income, Universal Basic Services, MMT + Job Guarantee, State Capitalism / China, Stakeholder Capitalism, State Capitalism / Qatar, Doughnut Economics, Libertarian Minarchism
0.0, structural failure
Fully Automated Luxury Communism, Centrally Planned Socialism
Sources
Definition: Paper Section 6; restated in v2.0 (NEEC_Criteria_v2_s45.md, Appendix V). Anchors: Paper Appendix H.7.