Skip to main content

Country Page Family

How do you analyse a country's potential prosperity without overwhelming the reader or hiding uncertainty?

Use one hub and five child pages. The structure is canonical; each country's conclusions must be earned independently.

Potential Prosperity​

  1. Principles — how value is transformed, distributed, purchased, and appreciated.
  2. Performance — react to what matters most; cashflow is king.
  3. Platform — operating base and technology.
  4. Process — capabilities enabled by platform.
  5. Players — composition of a thriving ecosystem.

The model is a loop:

Principles guide Players → Players use Platform → Platform enables Process → Process produces Performance → Performance tests Principles

Page Contract​

The hub owns the country question, evidence boundary, five routes, current read, comparison route, and only fully approved composites. It does not repeat the five child lessons.

Each child owns exactly five canonical dimensions and uses this grammar:

  1. opening question;
  2. Model — define the P and its contribution to potential prosperity;
  3. Dimensions — evidence, contrary evidence, subgroup limits, and score state;
  4. Inside-Out — compound a demonstrated local strength;
  5. Outside-In — import an external demand, method, or capability;
  6. Run It — one bounded prompt with a proof and stop condition;
  7. Context, Links, Changes my mind, and Questions.

Frontmatter ownership is strict:

  • Principles owns its five country_* principle fields.
  • Performance owns its five performance fields.
  • Platform owns its five platform fields.
  • Process owns its five process fields.
  • Players owns its five player fields.
  • The hub owns credibility, gate, Trad/Future composites, derived classes, and scoring date.

Migration Loop​

  1. Consume: read the old page, country hub, scorecard, research prompt, and downstream links.
  2. Extract: move every material legacy claim into _research/ with location, dimension, evidence state, legal state, and disposition.
  3. Research: create five dated evidence packets plus an adversarial credibility ledger.
  4. Calibrate: assign 1/3/5 only when every anchor clause passes; otherwise retain a typed unknown.
  5. Approve: freeze the 25 dimensions and four credibility sub-signals in a dated approval receipt.
  6. Compute: only fully numeric, approved inputs may produce means, gated composites, or classifications.
  7. Articulate: migrate useful evidence into the five pages; preserve existing routes and anchors.
  8. Verify: check links, frontmatter ownership, legal language, subgroup differences, staleness, manifest, and meaning graph.

Review Test​

A country page family passes when a reader can answer five questions:

  1. Which principles govern value and remedy?
  2. Which performance gauge proves value is produced and retained?
  3. Which platform assets enable or constrain action?
  4. Which processes turn those assets into usable capability?
  5. Which players can enter, contribute, benefit, and remain?

It fails when rhetoric outruns the approval receipt, one city silently stands for the nation, a proposal becomes current law, or an unknown disappears into an average.

Examples​

Changes my mind: a third country cannot use this pattern without duplicating background, losing evidence, or forcing unapproved conclusions.

Questions​

Which country should be the first independent replication test?

Next question: can two reviewers migrate the same country and produce the same page ownership and evidence states?