Mind · Strategy

PURE

The viability framework that wires Parsimony, Novelty, Realizable, and Expansive into a non-compensatory, orthogonal evaluation — specializations (PURECheck/PUREOptimization/PUREBrainstorming) apply this contract

Definition

Mechanism

The framework that defines how the four general viability components — Parsimony, Novelty, Realizable, Expansive — compose into a viability evaluation. PURE specifies the usage contract shared by every PURE instance: (1) the four dimensions are orthogonal — they must be evaluated without sight of each other, because in a single context the faculties corrupt each other (an expansive vision dampens ruthlessness about uniqueness, a feasible plan inflates its own transferability); (2) the evaluation is non-compensatory — no axis can offset another's failure, and overall viability passes only when every axis independently meets its declared criterion; (3) **variable depth is definitional**: a PURE instance is a five-second screen or a week-long investigation with hundreds of sub-solvers — the same framework at different depths. Each component is itself a decomposition point (a solver specializing in parsimony might deploy sub-solvers attempting competing compressions; one specializing in expansiveness might fan out across hostile transfer domains), and how deeply each axis is evaluated is purely economic. The four component patterns (Parsimony, Novelty, Realizable, Expansive) are the general concepts; PURE is the framework that declares how those generals are wired together when the question being asked is viability. Applications such as PURECheck, PUREOptimization, and PUREBrainstorming apply this framework while choosing their own evaluation depth and downstream policy.

Invariants

  1. Four-axis: a PURE instance always evaluates across all four of Parsimony, Novelty, Realizable, Expansive; no subset is PURE.
  2. Orthogonality: the four axes must be evaluated in isolation — cognitive contamination between them (a single-context pass covering all four) defeats the framework's purpose.
  3. Non-compensatory: no high score on one axis can offset a failure on another; every axis must independently pass.
  4. Framework not implementation: the specific rating semantics (traffic-light, scalar, binary) are descendant concerns — PURE names only the axes and the composition rule.

Risks

Failure modes

  1. Single-context contamination

    all four axes evaluated in one pass — Parsimony softens under an expansive vision, Realizable inflates when mechanism is exciting.

  2. Compensatory drift

    a 'weighted average' implementation that lets a 9/10 on Expansive outweigh a 3/10 on Realizable — violates the non-compensatory invariant even though the framework was nominally followed.

  3. Proxy axes

    substituting a proxy for one of the four (e.g., 'market fit' for Expansive) that doesn't preserve the axis's defining question; the framework looks like PURE but scores something else.

  4. Skipped axis

    evaluating three of four and declaring pass — not a PURE evaluation.

Relationships

Builds on

Composes with

Novelty

Evaluates structural distinctness

Parsimony

Complexity justification via Occams Razor

Realizable

Evaluates execution feasibility of a plan

Used by

References

PURECheck

Observational four-axis PURE viability check

Reference

Identity

Ref
PURE#b65a
Sema ID
sema:PURE#mh:SHA-256:b65a673f236a094421e8ae7278ca0cc24a1de7b998caf26aef1e2022be1d0efd
Ring
1
Tier
1
Updated
2026-11-11
Supersedes
  • sema:PURE#mh:SHA-256:a5776a4bf504ba6c9a8d9874af1c0b6efa9f08a63b694696a760e9097db8ba23
  • sema:PURE#mh:SHA-256:7ed435750dde79d334021535d6fefcf015d68db51189c90bedbcc14743757436
  • sema:PURE#mh:SHA-256:d7c9f0803b0d38cb60969e5b0349420da0ffdf4071ad85a42d22ddbeb75288f8