Second Renaissance project model

Purpose

Reconstruct the five supplied LTP documents as one evidence-backed causal model and complete the missing bridge from strategy to action.

System boundary

The modeled system is a Second Renaissance group, community, or initiative that can influence:

its strategic maps and decision rules;
public entry pathways;
recurring practices and participant roles;
facilitator development;
pocket and sangha containers;
documentation, replication, and review cadence.

Civilizational conditions, participant life circumstances, institutional incentives, and external shocks are relevant but not controlled by the group.

Candidate goals

G-1 — Co-initiate a conscious transformation toward a wiser, weller, regenerative civilization. Strongest textual support; selected provisionally.
Increase verified durable adoption of Second Renaissance-aligned practices and social forms. More measurable, but better treated as throughput serving G-1 rather than the goal itself.
Build a functioning Second Renaissance operating system. Actionable within the group, but an intermediate system objective rather than the final outcome.

Provisional goal

G-1: Co-initiate a conscious transformation toward a wiser, weller, regenerative civilization.

Confidence is high that this is the documents’ intended goal, but it remains provisional as the group’s operating goal.

Behavioral model

Candidate flow:

public contact
→ first practice
→ recurring practice
→ contribution
→ facilitation/stewardship
→ pocket and sangha
→ documented mature pattern
→ independent replication
→ institutional adoption

At each transition, participants can accept, pause, decline, or exit. The FRT’s own negative-branch analysis makes consent, qualitative discernment, outward service, and maturity controls necessary parts of the flow.

Current constraint

RC-1: The group lacks a reliable architecture that converts interest into practice, contribution, pocket formation, and replication.

This is the strongest supplied hypothesis, not a confirmed bottleneck. Governance, trust, facilitator capacity, funding, or another cause could prove tighter after lived validation.

Core problem

The documents propose an extensive operating system but do not provide lived evidence that the named UDEs exist, the arrows hold, or the group accepts the goal and throughput definition. Consequently, acting on the model at full scale risks optimizing an elegant but unvalidated theory.

Core conflict

The group appears to need both:

movement-like visibility and accessibility; and
laboratory-like depth, practice, and rigor.

The hidden assumption is that these modes must compete rather than form stages of one system.

Direction of solution

Use a broad invitation around protected, practice-based pockets; govern the model as a living commons; test each downstream transition in short learning cycles; and scale only mature patterns.

Reconciliation findings

The CRT already states a candidate throughput definition while naming absence of an accepted definition as a root cause. The distinction should be “authored candidate” versus “group-accepted operating definition.”
The CRT foregrounds conversion architecture as the constraint, while the PRT dependency chain places map governance and validation first. These are compatible if constraint and earliest prerequisite are kept distinct.
The FRT contains eight injections and strong negative-branch work, but no implementation evidence.
The PRT explicitly says a Transition Tree is next; none was supplied. This run adds one provisionally.
Repository planning says the dashboard was only verified on a toy fixture. This model provides a non-toy visualization but not substantive group validation.

Model authority

ltp/ltp-model.yaml is authoritative for identifiers, evidence, causal links, view membership, current constraint, and recommended next action.