Four Layers of Economic Rationality: A Diagnostic Extension of the Rational Agent from Dimensional Sequence Theory
From the Kingdom of Means to the Kingdom of Ends

Writing Declaration: This paper was independently authored by Han Qin. All intellectual decisions, framework design, and editorial judgments were made by the author.

Four Layers of Economic Rationality: A Diagnostic Extension of the Rational Agent from Dimensional Sequence Theory

经济理性的四个层级：维度序列理论对理性人假设的诊断与扩展

Han Qin（秦汉）

ORCID: 0009-0009-9583-0018

---

§1 Introduction: The Economics of the Kingdom of Ends

Kant's Kingdom of Ends (Reich der Zwecke) remains one of the most ambitious ideals in moral philosophy. It is not a utopian blueprint or a particular institutional design but an ontological condition: in the Kingdom of Ends, every rational being is simultaneously legislator and subject — legislating for herself while recognizing that every other rational being does the same, treating herself as an end while treating every other as an end. The logical core of this ideal is not "goodwill" or "altruism" but the mutual recognition of a structural fact: you are an end, I am an end, and the relationship between us must be built on this double recognition. To recognize someone as an end is not to assume that she is benevolent — she may be hostile, deceptive, manipulative, or pursuing purposes entirely opposed to yours. To recognize someone as an end is to perceive her as a complete subject, including the full range of her intentions, benign and malign alike. Precisely because you perceive her as a complete purposive subject, you are better positioned to judge what she is doing.

This ideal has been discussed in moral philosophy for over two centuries, yet it has never been systematically translated into the language of economics. This is no accident. The core grammar of mainstream economics — the rational-agent model built on given preferences, commensurable values, and a single utility metric — rests on an ontological premise almost symmetrically opposed to the Kingdom of Ends: each agent maximizes her own interest; other agents are variables in her utility function; the market's "invisible hand" aggregates self-interested behavior into social welfare. In Kantian terms, this core grammar describes a Kingdom of Means: all values can be expressed as preferences, all preferences can be exchanged, all agents serve as instruments for one another.

An immediate clarification is necessary. Economics has not been blind to phenomena beyond the Kingdom of Means. The social-preferences literature (Fehr & Schmidt 1999; Bolton & Ockenfels 2000) has systematically documented fairness, reciprocity, and guilt aversion; Akerlof and Kranton (2000) explicitly incorporated identity into the utility model; the sacred-values literature (Ginges, Atran et al.) has shown experimentally that material compensation for sacred values triggers stronger opposition rather than compliance; incomplete contracts (Hart & Moore), relational contracts (Baker, Gibbons & Murphy), and integrative negotiation are well-established concepts. What this paper criticizes is not these contributions but a deeper fact: even with these strands in place, the dominant language still tends to re-encode them into utility, incentives, constraints, equilibria, and transaction costs. Social preferences become additional parameters in the utility function; identity becomes an argument of utility; sacred values become "extremely high reservation prices." The strands have seen beyond the Kingdom of Means, but the mainstream grammar translates their findings back into its vocabulary.

The Kingdom of Means is not a pejorative label. It accurately describes a large share of real economic activity. Standardized commodity markets, anonymous transactions, one-shot games — in these settings, agents do relate primarily as means, and the utility-maximization model is both elegant and effective. Adam Smith's insight — that the butcher and the baker provide our dinner not out of benevolence but out of self-interest — is entirely correct at the 12DD level.

The problem is not that economics is entirely unable to see beyond the Kingdom of Means — it has seen beyond, and produced the important subsidiary work just cited. The problem is that the mainstream core grammar has no place to accommodate the ontological status of these phenomena. A person who refuses to sell something "at any price" can only be translated as "she places an extremely high utility on it"; two negotiators who produce a solution that neither possessed beforehand can only be translated as "they found a Pareto improvement in a larger solution space"; an institution designed not to maximize efficiency but to ensure that "no person shall be treated merely as a means" can only be translated as "reducing transaction costs." The translations are not wrong, but they are lossy — and this paper sets out to measure how large the loss is and where it occurs.

Kahneman and Tversky's behavioral economics introduced important corrections, but the direction of correction remains within the Kingdom of Means. They discovered that humans commit systematic errors when executing utility maximization — anchoring, framing effects, prospect theory — all precise characterizations of cognitive biases internal to the Kingdom of Means. Thaler's nudge theory further converted these findings into policy tools. But Kahneman never questioned whether "preference" is a sufficient language for describing human values, and Thaler never touched the question of what is worth pursuing. In other words: behavioral economics corrects execution errors within the Kingdom of Means, not the ontological premise of the Kingdom of Means itself.

This paper attempts to translate Kant's Kingdom of Ends into the language of economics.

We are aware that the Kingdom of Ends is an ideal case and that reality is far more complex — not all agents can perceive others as ends, not all institutions can nurture such perception, and bilateral non-doubt (16DD in the Self-as-an-End framework) is a rare and precious achievement. But just as Euclidean geometry must first articulate the ideal case before measuring how far real surfaces deviate from flatness, this paper must first articulate the structure of economic rationality under Kingdom-of-Ends conditions before it can precisely diagnose what the existing economic framework loses and where. Various intermediate cases — a 15DD agent facing a 14DD agent, insufficient institutional nurturing, scenarios where walk-away is impossible — will be developed in subsequent papers in this series.

The diagnostic instrument comes from Dimensional Sequence Theory, the cognitive application of the Self-as-an-End (SAE) framework. The SAE framework has established a dimensional sequence from 0DD through 16DD in prior work (Qin 2024a, 2024b, 2024c), and a companion paper mapped 12DD through 15DD onto a four-layer cognitive architecture (Qin 2025a). This paper applies that architecture to the rational-agent assumption in economics, arguing for the following core thesis:

The "rationality" described by economics is 12DD rationality — interest-maximization calculation. What Kahneman corrects are 13DD cognitive biases. But at the 14DD and 15DD levels, there exist two further forms of rationality that the economic framework cannot accommodate: the guarding of non-negotiables (14DD) and the production of a joint outcome C between two independent subjects (15DD). A large share of what economics labels "irrational behavior" is the systematic misreading of these higher-level rationalities by the 12DD framework.

The posture of this paper is diagnostic and extensional, not negative and substitutive. Economics describes 12DD rationality accurately; Kahneman's discoveries about 13DD biases are important. What this paper does is identify the shared boundary of their applicability and exhibit the structure that lies beyond it — in the direction of the Kingdom of Ends. All frameworks are incomplete; all have remainders — including SAE itself. But a good framework is not one without remainders (no such framework exists) but one that can identify where its remainders lie and leave room for successors to address them. Whether this paper's diagnosis is accurate will ultimately be judged by whether its non-trivial predictions can be empirically tested and falsified.

A final positioning note. The SAE framework proceeds from a structural theory of subjecthood (Papers 1–3) through ontological foundations (Papers 4–6), methodology (the chisel-construct cycle), metaphysics (Dimensional Sentence-Form Theory), cognitive architecture (four-layer cognition), and psychoanalysis (Id / Ego / Superego / Cert), building a complete sequence from 0DD to 16DD. All of these theoretical lines converge on a single question: how do persons live together? Economic activity is the largest-scale, most sustained, and most concrete manifestation of this question in the real world. This paper is the convergence point of every theoretical line listed above — the chisel-construct cycle here becomes the tracking of remainders in the rational-agent assumption; the dimensional sequence here becomes four layers of economic rationality; the institutional theory here becomes the infrastructural diagnosis from the Kingdom of Means toward the Kingdom of Ends. This is not merely another application of the SAE framework; it is the core question toward which the entire theoretical preparation has been directed.

---

§2 Framework Synopsis: The Dimensional Sequence and the Four-Layer Cognitive Architecture

This section briefly recapitulates the theoretical tools on which the paper relies. Full derivations can be found in the three foundational SAE papers (Qin 2024a, 2024b, 2024c) and the cognitive-architecture paper (Qin 2025a); only the minimal equipment needed for the economic application is provided here.

The SAE framework establishes a dimensional sequence (Dimensional Degree sequence) from 0DD through 16DD, each level adding one irreducible structural dimension atop the previous one. The generative methodology — the chisel-construct cycle — has been fully derived in the methodological overview (Qin 2026d): negation operates (chisel) → leaves a sediment (construct) → the sediment is incomplete (remainder) → incompleteness forces negation to operate again (bridge) → until something un-negatable is reached (thing-in-itself). The "rational agent" of economics is a construct at the 12DD level — a specific sediment of negation, effective but incomplete, necessarily carrying a remainder. What this paper tracks is what that remainder points to. The four levels directly relevant to this paper — 12DD through 15DD — correspond to four structurally distinct cognitive modes:

12DD — "Thinking." Pure cognitive operation without a subject marker. Pattern recognition, causal inference, and interest calculation all run at this level. Classical information-processing models in cognitive science and rational-choice theory in economics primarily describe this layer. Its signature: fast, efficient, parallelizable — but there is no "who is thinking" in the picture.

13DD — "I think." The subject appears. Cognitive operations are tagged as "belonging to an I," giving rise to self-monitoring, uncertainty assessment, and risk perception. What Kahneman describes as System 2 — slow, effortful, serial — primarily corresponds to this layer. The emergence of 13DD makes "I might be wrong" a possible cognitive content, at the cost of reduced speed and increased cognitive load.

14DD — "I cannot not." Will appears. Not "I want X" (still a 13DD preference) but "even at a cost, I must hold X." The hallmark of 14DD is non-negotiability: there exist things the subject will not surrender in any preference exchange — not because their utility is infinite but because they lie outside the utility function altogether. They are ends, not means.

15DD — "Each of us cannot not, therefore." Coordination appears. The operation of 15DD is not "I pursue my purpose" (14DD) but "I perceive that you too have non-negotiable purposes; between our respective non-negotiables I seek a solution C such that C ≠ A and C ≠ B, yet C requires neither party to abandon a non-negotiable." C is an output, not a compromise — it is a new solution that neither party possessed before entering the process. The minimal criteria for 15DD include: both parties have non-negotiables; C is not identical to either party's initial position; the search for C depends on genuine inquiry into both parties' bottom lines; and no deal (not producing C) is a legitimate output (Qin 2025a).

The four layers relate not by substitution but by nesting: 15DD presupposes 14DD (you must first have your own non-negotiables to perceive another's), 14DD presupposes 13DD (you must first have an "I" to have "I cannot not"), 13DD presupposes 12DD (you must first have cognitive content to self-monitor it). Each layer retains the full capacities of the layer below and adds a new structural dimension.

A key technical point: speed is a function of training, not of level. 12DD operations are typically fast — not because 12DD is "inherently fast" but because 12DD operations are the most extensively trained. 15DD operations, once sufficiently trained, can also be extremely fast — perceiving the person across from you as an independent end at the speed of intuition. The companion paper demonstrated a speed U-curve: 12DD fast (no self-reference) → 13DD slow (the self appears) → 14DD slow (will-verification added) → 15DD fast again (self-verification locked as background, freeing the full cognitive bandwidth for perceiving the other). The speed of 12DD is empty speed (no subject); the speed of 15DD is full speed (everything is present but no longer requires stepwise verification). This distinction has direct consequences for economics, developed in §4 and §8.

The above constitutes the paper's entire theoretical equipment. The four-layer cognitive architecture bears a precise isomorphism to Dimensional Sentence-Form Theory (Qin 2026c): 12DD economic rationality corresponds to the instrumental hypothetical imperative ("wanting A, therefore doing B"); 13DD to the self-aware hypothetical imperative ("I want A, therefore I do B"); 14DD to the purposive hypothetical imperative ("my purpose is A, therefore I do B"); and 15DD to the categorical imperative ("the other's purpose is A, therefore I cannot not do B"). The "translation loss" by which economics renders 14DD / 15DD phenomena in 12DD language corresponds, in Sentence-Form Theory, to two characteristic misalignments: instrumentalization (Instrumentalisierung — replacing "cannot not" with "if you want, then") and alterity erasure (Alteritätstilgung — redescribing a two-subject structure as single-agent optimization). The following sections apply this equipment to the core concepts, canonical models, and institutional logic of economics.

---

§3 Four Layers of Economic Rationality

"Rationality" in economics is typically treated as a single concept: the rational agent maximizes utility subject to constraints. Decisions that deviate from this pattern are classified as "irrational" or "boundedly rational." The work of behavioral economics has largely consisted in patching this single concept — revealing systematic errors in the execution of utility maximization.

The DD framework offers a different diagnosis: the problem is not that humans err in executing rationality but that "rationality" itself is not unitary. There exist four structurally distinct forms of rationality, corresponding to four cognitive levels, each with its own operating logic, its own success criteria, its own definition of "reasonable." The rationality described by economics is one of them — the bottom layer.

3.1 12DD Rationality: Interest Maximization

This is the rational agent of the economics textbook. Given a preference ordering and a set of constraints, choose the option with the highest utility. The core assumption of this rationality is that everything of value can be placed on a single commensurable scale — bread, leisure, social status, moral principles can all ultimately be expressed as utility, and utilities can be exchanged.

12DD rationality is not wrong. It is the optimal strategy at the level of pure cognition ("thinking"): with no subject marker, no uncertainty monitoring, and no will involved, performing a maximization calculation over a given preference ordering is the most efficient information-processing operation available. The price mechanism, comparative advantage, arbitrage equilibrium — these central insights of economics rest on 12DD rationality, and their descriptions of 12DD-level phenomena are accurate.

The problem lies at the boundary: 12DD rationality assumes that all values can be expressed as preference orderings and that all preference orderings can be exchanged. When this assumption holds (as in standardized commodity markets), 12DD rationality is sufficient. When it does not hold (as when a person refuses to sell something "at any price"), 12DD rationality can only classify the behavior as irrational — because within its framework, there is no place for the concept of "non-exchangeable value."

3.2 13DD Rationality: Uncertainty Monitoring

The emergence of 13DD means the subject begins to monitor her own cognitive operations. "I might be wrong" becomes possible cognitive content. This gives rise to risk assessment, probabilistic reasoning, and awareness of one's own biases.

Kahneman and Tversky's research program falls primarily at this level. Prospect theory describes systematic biases in the evaluation of uncertain gains and losses — reference-point dependence, loss aversion, probability-weight distortion. The framing effect describes how identical decision problems elicit different choices when presented differently. The anchoring effect describes the outsized influence of initial information on subsequent judgments. What these biases share is that they all occur in the process of evaluating uncertainty — precisely the operating space of 13DD.

Kahneman's contribution is immense: he revealed that 13DD rationality is imperfect, that humans commit systematic errors in monitoring their own cognition. But his correction has a boundary — it corrects execution errors within 13DD rationality, not the level structure of rationality itself. In Kahneman's framework, "rationality" remains singular (utility maximization); humans simply often fail to achieve it. He did not ask: does a form of rationality exist that utility maximization itself cannot describe?

Thaler's nudge theory is the policy extension of the 13DD diagnosis: since humans commit systematic errors at the 13DD level, change the choice architecture to help them err less. This is an ingenious repair within the 12DD framework — default options, information presentation, immediate feedback mechanisms — all operating within the preference framework, assuming that the agent's underlying goals are correct and only the execution is flawed. Nudge does not touch the question "what is worth pursuing"; it addresses only "how to help people pursue more effectively what they already want to pursue."

3.3 14DD Rationality: Guarding Non-Negotiables

14DD introduces a concept that the 12DD framework fundamentally cannot accommodate: there exist things a subject will not surrender in any preference exchange — not because the offer is too low, but because they lie outside the domain of exchange altogether.

Economics uniformly labels such behavior "irrational." A person who rejects a net-positive transaction — whether refusing an unfair offer in the ultimatum game or declining a high bid for a family business — is irrational within the 12DD framework, because "rejecting positive gain" has no explanatory position in the logic of utility maximization. Behavioral economics has attempted repairs using loss aversion, fairness preferences, and identity utility, but these repairs essentially force 14DD phenomena into 12DD language: "I won't sell" is translated as "my utility assessment of this item is extremely high" or "selling it would damage my identity utility."

The DD framework diagnoses this entirely differently: the 14DD "I won't sell" is not an extremely high utility assessment — the item is simply not within the utility function. It is an end, not a means. Placing a price on it — any price — already demotes it from end to means, and this demotion itself is what the 14DD subject cannot accept. In Kantian terms: economics treats everything as having a "price" (Preis); 14DD rationality guards "dignity" (Würde) — what has dignity cannot be substituted and therefore cannot be priced.

A foreseeable objection must be addressed directly. An economist might argue that "a non-negotiable is simply a parameter with infinite weight in the utility function — set its utility to positive infinity and my model accommodates your phenomenon." The mathematical version of this objection is an extreme extension of the Fehr-Schmidt (1999) inequity-aversion model. But it is technically wrong: the core law of the utility function is the existence of a marginal rate of substitution (MRS) — for any two goods, a sufficiently large Δx can always compensate for a loss of Δy. This requires the utility function to be continuously differentiable across all dimensions. A 14DD non-negotiable is precisely the point at which MRS breaks down (is non-differentiable / non-existent): not "an extremely large Δx is required to compensate" but "no Δx exists that can compensate." Setting the weight to positive infinity does not solve the problem; it creates a mathematical singularity at which the utility function loses its well-definedness in the calculus sense. A 14DD non-negotiable is not an extremely high price; it is an exit from the pricing system itself.

From a different angle: a non-negotiable is not an externally imposed constraint (the law forbids you from selling; the contract stipulates you cannot sell) but the subject's own law (Qin 2026f). The SAE ethics paper demonstrates the structural distinction between "one's own law" and external norms: external norms are constraints that can be violated at a cost; one's own law is a constitutive component of subjecthood — violating it is not "bearing a consequence" but self-disintegration. Economics translates all normative force into "constraints"; this translation is accurate for external norms but commits a category error for one's own law — you are not "constrained from selling"; you are "no longer yourself if you sell." The mathematical formulation of MRS breakdown and the philosophical formulation of one's own law are two faces of the same 14DD fact.

14DD rationality has its own standard of reasonableness: it is not "obstinacy regardless of cost" but "holding a non-negotiable with full awareness of the cost." A 14DD subject who refuses a transaction does so not because she cannot calculate (12DD capacity intact), not because she has misjudged uncertainty (13DD capacity intact), but because she has identified that the transaction demands surrender of something outside the domain of exchange. This is a higher-level rationality, not an absence of rationality.

3.4 15DD Rationality: Producing C

15DD is the level at which Self-as-an-End truly materializes. The rationality of 15DD is not "I pursue my purpose" (14DD already achieves this) but "I perceive that you too are a self-as-an-end, that you too have non-negotiables, and on this basis I seek a solution C."

C is not a compromise, not a middle ground, not a split-the-difference. C is a new solution — before the two parties entered the process, C existed in neither party's solution set. The conditions for producing C are: both parties have non-negotiables; C is not identical to A or B; the search for C depends on genuine inquiry into both parties' bottom lines; if C does not exist, no deal is a legitimate output.

Economics has almost no room for C. The "cooperation" that game theory can handle comes in only two forms: mutually beneficial exchange (I help you because it also benefits me — 12DD) and strategic cooperation in repeated games (I do not betray you now because we will transact again — still long-run 12DD maximization). Bargaining theory handles distribution ratios — given a pie, how much for you, how much for me — which is fundamentally zero-sum plus haggling, with no operation for "producing a new pie that neither party previously had." The concept of integrative negotiation exists in the management literature, but formal economic models have almost never formalized it, because doing so requires admitting "there exists a new solution outside the initial solution set" — an admission without natural expression in the utility-maximization framework.

The fundamental distinction between 15DD rationality and 12DD rationality lies in the ontological status of the other. In the 12DD world, the other is a variable in my utility function — I optimize my payoff, you optimize yours, Nash equilibrium is the intersection of two optimizers. In the 15DD world, the other is not a variable in my utility function but an independent purposive subject — I perceive that you have your own non-negotiables, and this perception itself changes my cognitive operating mode. In Kantian terms, 12DD is a kingdom in which all persons serve as means to one another; 15DD is a step toward the Kingdom of Ends — I begin to perceive you as an end. Full realization of the Kingdom of Ends requires bidirectionality (16DD), but 15DD as a unilateral capacity already suffices to produce cognitive operations and behavioral patterns that the 12DD framework cannot describe.

A readily occurring misreading must be cleared: 15DD's "seeing the other as an end" is not an assumption of the other's goodwill. To see another as an independent purposive subject means perceiving her as a complete subject — including her goodwill, ill-will, deception, seduction, strategies, and genuine needs, all of it. What you see is the person, not her strategy set. This means that a 15DD subject's capacity to detect deception is actually stronger than a 12DD subject's: 12DD can see only the other's strategy set and payoff matrix and optimally respond within the matrix; 15DD can see the person behind the strategies — is she genuinely seeking C, or is she using the appearance of C to mask predatory intent? This judgment has no place in the 12DD framework (12DD does not distinguish "sincere proposals" from "strategic proposals" — it sees only payoffs); in the 15DD framework, it is a core competence. The implication for the rational-agent model is decisive: 12DD "rationality" reduces cognitive complexity by simplifying the other into a strategy set, at the cost of losing perceptual depth regarding the other's intentions. 15DD restores this depth — not through naivety, but through more complete perception.

3.5 Relations Among the Four Layers

The four layers of economic rationality are not competing hypotheses but a nested structure: each layer retains the full capacities of the layer below and adds a new dimension. A subject operating at 15DD does not abandon 12DD interest-calculation — she can still calculate, assess risk, and execute utility maximization. But her decision space is larger than that of a pure 12DD agent: she additionally identifies "which things cannot be exchanged" (14DD) and "what the person across from me cannot exchange" (15DD) — information that simply is not information in the 12DD world.

The most critical link in the nesting structure is the emergence relation from 14DD to 15DD. SAE Paper 5 (Qin 2026e) demonstrates that the capacity to perceive the other as an end (15DD) is not independent of one's own cannot-not (14DD) — it emerges from 14DD. You must first have your own non-negotiables to genuinely perceive that another has hers. A subject lacking 14DD anchoring who attempts 15DD operations has only two degenerate modes: imposing her own cannot-not on the other (Q2 of Paper 5 — subjectivity inflation; in the economic context, forcing the other to accept one's own terms) or surrendering all bottom lines and dissolving into the other (Q4 of Paper 5 — subjectivity capitulation; in the economic context, producing a false C). This means 14DD economic rationality is not an obstacle to 15DD but its prerequisite: one cannot skip "guarding one's own non-negotiables" and proceed directly to "producing C between both parties' non-negotiables."

This in turn means that the "irrational behaviors" identified by economics need to be re-diagnosed case by case. Some are genuinely 13DD execution errors (Kahneman's territory; correction is warranted). Others are 14DD or 15DD rationality being misread by the 12DD framework — not "rationality failure" but "the normal operation of a higher-level rationality, judged as anomalous by the lower-level framework."

A deeper connection warrants mention. Economic decision-making ultimately rests on judgment. Kant needed three Critiques: the Critique of Pure Reason for cognition (corresponding to 12DD–13DD calculation and monitoring), the Critique of Practical Reason for will (corresponding to 14DD purposive anchoring), and the Critique of Judgment to bridge nature and freedom. Economics has used only the tools of the first Critique (understanding / Verstand — rule-given calculation) and none of the third (reflective judgment / reflektierende Urteilskraft — judgment without a pre-given rule). Yet 14DD and 15DD economic decisions require precisely reflective judgment: Is this item within the domain of exchange? Is the person across from me genuinely seeking C or feigning? These judgments have no 12DD algorithm to follow; they must be made in the concrete situation. The SAE aesthetics paper (Qin 2025b) demonstrates the unfolding structure of judgment at each DD level — every level has its own standard of full unfolding, and evaluating a higher-level judgment by a lower-level standard ("You rejected a positive gain — irrational!") is itself a sentence-form misalignment. The next section develops this diagnosis on three canonical economic models.

---

§4 Re-Diagnosing Three Canonical Models

This section applies the DD framework to three flagship models in economics — the prisoner's dilemma, the ultimatum game, and the endowment effect — demonstrating in each case how "irrational behavior" can be re-diagnosed as the normal operation of a higher-level rationality.

4.1 The Prisoner's Dilemma: Nash Equilibrium as the Degenerate Solution

The prisoner's dilemma is the most celebrated model in game theory. Two suspects are held separately, each choosing to cooperate (remain silent) or defect (testify against the other). The payoff matrix is structured so that defection is the individually optimal strategy regardless of the other's choice. Both defect, reaching Nash equilibrium — an equilibrium inferior for both to the outcome of mutual cooperation.

Economics reads this result as "individual rationality producing collective irrationality" and derives a suite of institutional-design imperatives: repeated games, punishment mechanisms, reputation systems, third-party enforcement — all aimed at "solving" the prisoner's dilemma by inducing 12DD rational agents to cooperate under specific conditions.

The DD diagnosis is: given the Kingdom of Means, the prisoner's dilemma is correct. Two agents cannot see each other's purposes; they see only each other's strategy sets and payoff matrices — the other is a variable in the utility function, not an independent purposive subject. Under this presupposition, defection is indeed the only rational choice, and Nash equilibrium precisely describes the equilibrium structure internal to the Kingdom of Means. Game theory is not wrong within its own presuppositions.

The question this paper asks is: what if the presuppositions are different?

If both parties operate at 15DD — I perceive you as a self-as-an-end, you perceive me likewise — what happens to the structure of the dilemma? The answer is not "higher cooperation rates" but rather that the payoff matrix given by the standard prisoner's dilemma no longer exhausts the problem structure. Under 15DD cognitive conditions, "optimizing over the other's strategy set" is no longer the sole cognitive mode — you have seen that the person across from you is an independent purposive subject, and this perception opens an action space beyond the payoff matrix: you can communicate, you can ask what the other truly needs, you can search for a solution C outside the matrix. Cooperation is not a strategy "incentivized" within a given matrix but a natural cognitive output under conditions in which the matrix itself can be rewritten.

This is not to say that 15DD eliminates all conflict — even when both parties see each other as ends, scarce resources, entangled constraints, and third-party externalities may leave genuine tensions in place. The incomplete-contracts literature (Hart & Moore) and the relational-contracts literature address precisely these real tensions. What 15DD changes is not "whether conflict exists" but "within what framework conflict is processed": from strategic optimization on a fixed matrix to a process in which the matrix itself can be rewritten and expanded. This is also why economics has internally developed concepts like integrative negotiation, residual control rights, and value-creating bargaining — they all attempt to describe the phenomenon of "going beyond the given matrix," but the mainstream core grammar has given them no ontological home.

A structural proposition follows: Nash equilibrium is the degenerate solution when 15DD conditions are not met. It accurately describes equilibrium within the Kingdom of Means, and in settings where Kingdom-of-Means conditions genuinely hold (anonymous transactions, one-shot games, purely competitive markets), its descriptive power is real. But economics has taken the degenerate case for the general model and the Kingdom of Means for the entire world. A large share of real economic activity — intra-firm collaboration, long-term business partnerships, household economic decisions — lies outside the presuppositions of Nash equilibrium, because the agents in these settings possess varying degrees of 15DD perception. The explanatory power of economics is notably weaker in these settings than in anonymous markets, not because the model needs "more parameters" but because the model's ontological presuppositions are wrong for these settings.

Furthermore, institutions acquire a new positioning in this framework. Economics understands institutions (property rights, contracts, enforcement mechanisms) as "tools for solving the prisoner's dilemma" — changing the payoff matrix to make cooperation the 12DD-optimal strategy. The DD framework does not deny this function but identifies a deeper one: institutions are infrastructure for lowering the threshold from the Nash-equilibrium degenerate case back to the 15DD general case. Good institutions do not merely alter payoffs so that agents "dare not defect"; they create conditions under which agents can more readily perceive the person across from them as an end — by lowering exit costs (your cooperation is a choice, not coercion), protecting inviolable domains (your core interests will not be compromised by cooperation), and safeguarding expressive freedom (you can say what you truly need). Institutions nurture 15DD rather than merely constraining 12DD.

4.2 The Ultimatum Game: A Three-Layer Decomposition of Rejection

The experimental setup of the ultimatum game is elegant in its simplicity: a proposer receives a sum of money and decides how to split it with a responder; the responder can only accept or reject; rejection means neither party receives anything.

12DD rationality predicts clearly: the responder should accept any positive offer, since "something" is always better than "nothing." The proposer, knowing this, should offer the smallest positive share. But experimental results consistently deviate from this prediction — responders frequently reject offers they deem "unfair" (typically below 30%), even though rejection means forgoing a positive payoff.

Behavioral economics explains this through "fairness preferences" and "negative reciprocity" — humans have a built-in aversion to unfairness and a willingness to pay costs to punish unfair behavior. This explanation is valid at the 13DD level: it acknowledges cognitive operations beyond pure interest calculation. But it lumps all rejection behavior under a single explanatory framework, losing the structural differences internal to rejection.

The DD diagnosis is that rejection behavior in the ultimatum game comprises at least three structurally distinct types, corresponding to different DD levels:

12DD rejection: loss-aversion driven. Some rejections are indeed 12DD-level responses — the unfair offer triggers loss aversion ("relative to a fair split, I have been deprived"), and rejection is an automatic response to perceived "relative loss." Signatures: sensitivity to the split ratio (closer to 50% means more likely to accept); susceptibility to framing effects (changing the wording changes rejection rates); disappearance under high cognitive load (fatigue or distraction increases acceptance of low offers).

14DD rejection: norm-guarding. Other rejections are 14DD acts of will — the subject identifies that the allocation violates her non-negotiable ("distribution should be fair" is not a preference but a norm), and rejection is an active response to norm violation. Signatures: reduced sensitivity to the split ratio (once below a threshold, rejection occurs; variation above the threshold matters little); immunity to framing effects (however you phrase it, my norm does not change); increased firmness under high cognitive load (14DD operations are will-driven and not easily overridden under pressure, because they are will rather than calculation).

15DD rejection: two-subject judgment. Still other rejections are 15DD-level — the subject is judging not just "is this split fair to me?" but "this mode of splitting is wrong for both of us." This rejection includes perception of the proposer's intent ("what do you take me for?") and evaluation of the relationship ("if I accept, we become a relationship in which you exploit me"). Signatures: sensitivity to the proposer's identity and intent (the same split ratio elicits different rejection rates from an anonymous opponent vs. an acquaintance, or from a deliberate vs. random allocation); may be accompanied by active counter-proposals or communication attempts ("this is wrong — let's try a different way"); no-deal is chosen not out of anger but as a diagnosis ("C is not possible under these conditions, so we do not produce C").

These three types of rejection are conflated in existing experimental designs. Behavioral economics's "fairness preference" model packages them all into a single utility function (adding an "inequity aversion" parameter), flattening the structural differences between them. The DD framework predicts that the three types can be experimentally separated — by manipulating cognitive load, framing, anonymity, and information about the proposer's intent, selectively activating or suppressing different levels of rejection. This will be developed in the non-trivial predictions of §7.

4.3 The Endowment Effect: 14DD Non-Negotiability Misdiagnosed as 12DD Loss Aversion

The endowment effect is one of behavioral economics's most celebrated findings: people systematically value what they already own more highly than an equivalent item they do not yet own. The classic experiment is the Kahneman, Knetsch, and Thaler (1990) mug experiment — subjects randomly given a mug demand a selling price (~$7) significantly higher than non-owners are willing to pay (~$3).

The standard explanation is a corollary of loss aversion: once you own something, giving it up is coded as a "loss," and losses weigh more heavily than equivalent gains, so the selling price exceeds the buying price. This is a 12DD–13DD-level explanation that treats the endowment effect as a cognitive bias — the "rational" valuation should be invariant to ownership, and humans deviate from "rationality" through the systematic distortion of loss aversion.

The DD diagnosis is: the endowment effect is a product of two structurally different phenomena covered by a single label.

12DD endowment effect: pure loss aversion. In the mug experiment, subjects demand a higher price for a randomly assigned mug — this is genuinely 12DD–13DD loss aversion. There is no 14DD relationship between the subject and the mug; the mug carries nothing non-negotiable, it is merely a newly acquired object. Here, behavioral economics's explanation is entirely correct: this is bias, an asymmetric encoding of "owned" and "not owned" by the cognitive system.

14DD endowment effect: non-negotiability. But when a person refuses to sell her old guitar "at any price," this is not the same phenomenon. The guitar carries her memories, her identity, her relationship with music — it is part of her purpose. Placing a price on it — however high — already demotes it from end to means. Her "high valuation" is not a loss-aversion distortion but the normal operation of 14DD rationality: the object lies outside the domain of exchange, and measuring it by willingness-to-accept and willingness-to-pay is like measuring length with a thermometer — the wrong instrument.

This judgment has independent empirical support. The sacred-values and taboo-tradeoff literatures (Tetlock 2003; Ginges, Atran et al. 2007) have accumulated substantial evidence: when issues are perceived as sacred values, material compensation for compromise not only fails to "buy" agreement but triggers stronger opposition — what Ginges et al. call the "backfire effect." This finding aligns precisely with the DD framework's 14DD diagnosis: sacred values are not "preferences with extremely high utility" but things outside the domain of exchange; proposing a material trade for them is proposing to demote an end to a means, and the response of the affected party is not "the price is too low so I refuse" but "the act of pricing it is itself a violation." The DD framework provides a generative ontological foundation for the sacred-values literature: sacred values are sacred because they operate at the 14DD level — they are the subject's non-negotiables, not parameters with especially large weights in the utility function.

The distinction between these two "endowment effects" is not one of degree (one somewhat stronger than the other) but of structure (one within the utility function, the other outside it altogether). Behavioral economics conflates them because it possesses only one language — preference and utility — to describe everything. In that language, "I won't sell" can only be translated as "my utility assessment is extremely high," not as "it lies outside the utility function." The latter translation requires acknowledging the boundary of the utility function — the existence of values that the utility function cannot describe — and this is precisely the concept introduced by 14DD rationality.

A non-trivial prediction follows: 12DD and 14DD endowment effects should respond to experimental manipulations in systematically different ways. The 12DD endowment effect should be susceptible to framing effects (changing phrasing changes the valuation gap), decay or remain stable over time (longer ownership does not necessarily increase valuation; novelty fades toward "rationality"), and be weakened by cognitive-debiasing techniques (reminding subjects of loss aversion can narrow the gap). The 14DD endowment effect should be immune to framing effects ("however you phrase it, I won't sell"), strengthen over time (the longer the ownership, the deeper the bond with purpose, the higher the valuation), and be resistant to debiasing ("you tell me this is loss aversion; I tell you it isn't — this is part of me"). If experiments can separate these two distinct response curves, they confirm the DD level structure within the endowment effect.

4.4 Summary: Incompleteness and Presupposition Replacement

Gödel's incompleteness theorem tells us that any sufficiently powerful formal system cannot be both consistent and complete. The utility-maximization framework of economics is a sufficiently powerful formal system — it is consistent (internally logically coherent), and therefore it must be incomplete (there exist true propositions it cannot express). The non-negotiability of 14DD and the C-production of 15DD are true propositions outside this framework: they are real cognitive phenomena without expression in the language of utility maximization.

The three cases exhibit three manifestations of the same incompleteness. The prisoner's dilemma: the framework presupposes the Kingdom of Means, derives correct conclusions within it, but cannot express the possibility that the dilemma dissolves under Kingdom-of-Ends conditions. The ultimatum game: the framework accommodates three structurally different rejection behaviors with a single "fairness preference" parameter — the parameter works but flattens the level distinctions. The endowment effect: the framework covers two phenomena — one inside and one outside the utility function — with the same label, because it lacks the concept of "outside the utility function."

What this paper has done is not prove economics "wrong" — a consistent formal system is never "wrong," only incomplete. What this paper has done is change the presuppositions: from "all values can be expressed as preferences" to "there exist values that cannot be expressed as preferences (14DD) and cognitive operations that cannot be captured in a single-agent utility function (15DD)." Under the new presuppositions, the explanatory space of the three canonical models expands, and phenomena previously labeled "irrational" receive structural explanations.

Of course, the DD framework is itself a formal system, subject to Gödel's theorem, and necessarily incomplete. We know this. All frameworks are incomplete, all carry remainders — this is SAE's fundamental posture and the posture of this paper. We do not claim that the DD framework is the final complete framework; we claim that it captures two more levels of phenomena than the utility-maximization framework, and that this claim can be empirically tested.

---

§5 Institutions, Co-Construction, and the Remainder of the Kingdom of Means

§4 demonstrated the DD framework's diagnostic capacity on three canonical models. This section ascends from the model level to the institutional level, arguing that the institutional vision of economics as a whole — from Coase through North to Williamson — is a 12DD projection of a deeper structure: it accurately describes the shape of the projection but loses what is being projected.

5.1 Institutional Economics: Its Contribution and Its Translation Loss

The core insight of institutional economics is that transactions are not costless. Coase (1937) argued that the firm exists because the cost of internal coordination is lower than the cost of market transactions. North (1990) generalized this insight to the entire institutional framework: property rights, contract enforcement, the rule of law — the function of these institutions is to reduce transaction costs, making larger-scale cooperation possible. Williamson (1985) further analyzed the sources of transaction costs: asset specificity, uncertainty, transaction frequency — these variables determine which governance structure (market, hybrid, hierarchy) is most efficient.

This body of work is profound, and this paper fully acknowledges its contribution. But this paper must also point out that institutional economics has used the 12DD language of efficiency to translate a set of ontological motivations far deeper than efficiency, losing the motivational layer in the process.

Consider property rights. Institutional economics holds that property-rights protection reduces transaction costs — when you know your assets will not be arbitrarily confiscated, you become willing to invest, trade, and innovate. This is entirely correct at the 12DD level. But the ontological motivation for property-rights protection is not efficiency. The ontological motivation is: every subject has a domain that cannot be arbitrarily invaded by external forces. This is the institutional expression of 14DD — your non-negotiables require an institutional framework for their protection. Efficiency is a by-product: when non-negotiables are protected, people do invest and trade more, but this is the result of protection, not its rationale.

Consider contract law. Institutional economics holds that contract law reduces information asymmetry — third-party enforcement of commitments enables cooperation even in one-shot games. Correct at the 12DD level. But the ontological motivation of contract law is: ensuring that both parties' wills are genuinely expressed, not that one party has been coerced or deceived. This is institutional scaffolding in the 15DD direction — a contract does not merely execute a transaction; it ensures that both parties behind the transaction participate as ends, not as means dragged in involuntarily. Contracts signed under duress are voidable in virtually every legal system, not because they are "inefficient" but because the coerced party's subjecthood has been violated.

Consider antitrust. Institutional economics holds that antitrust preserves market efficiency — monopoly leads to price distortions, output shortfalls, and innovation stagnation. Correct at the 12DD level. But the ontological motivation of antitrust is: preventing one party from demoting others to means. A monopolist turns consumers into choiceless passive recipients, suppliers into powerless dependents, and potential competitors into excluded outsiders — all institutional forms of demoting ends to means. What antitrust protects is not merely "competitive efficiency" but the end-status of every agent in the market.

The pattern of translation loss is uniform: economics has seen institutional functions (reducing transaction costs, reducing information asymmetry, preserving competition) and has also touched the motivations behind those functions (protecting non-negotiables, ensuring both parties are ends, preventing subjects from being demoted to means), but in the translation process it has demoted motivations to appendages of functions — the motivation for property-rights protection is translated as "reducing transaction costs," the motivation for contract law as "reducing information asymmetry," the motivation for antitrust as "preserving competitive efficiency." Functional description is an accurate 12DD projection; motivation is a 14DD–15DD ontological fact. Losing the ontological status of motivations does not impair understanding of functions, but it impairs judgment about institutional design direction — when you see only functions, you cannot tell which direction institutions should be built in; when you see motivations, the direction is clear: toward the Kingdom of Ends.

The Coase Theorem must be directly addressed here. The Coase Theorem states that as long as transaction costs are zero and property rights are clearly defined, market agents can always reach the optimal allocation of resources through negotiation. In outcome, the "frictionless negotiation" Coase imagined appears similar to 15DD C-production — both parties reach a better solution through dialogue. But structurally they are entirely different: Coasean negotiation is still 12DD — it redistributes surplus among given utility functions through side payments. 15DD C-production does not slide along a known Pareto frontier; it changes the dimensionality of the utility functions' state space by interrogating each party's underlying motives (A' and B'). More critically: when conflict involves 14DD non-negotiables, the Coase Theorem fails — not because transaction costs are too high, but because non-negotiables do not accept side payments. Zero transaction costs still cannot produce a deal, because the issue is not cost but the fact that some things lie outside the domain of transaction. This is the institutional-level counterpart of the 14DD endowment effect from §4.3: an honest no-deal is not market failure but the normal output of 14DD rationality.

5.2 Institutions as Infrastructure from the Kingdom of Means to the Kingdom of Ends

The SAE framework derives an ontological account of institutions in Paper 6 (Qin 2026a). The reason institutions exist is not efficiency but an ontological fact: when multiple subjects share finite space, mutual chiseling and walk-away are insufficient to process all intersections; a jointly accepted adjudicative framework is needed. The name for that framework is "institution."

Paper 6 derives five general propositions about institutions. Three have direct implications for economics:

The Thickness-Determination Principle. The thickness of an institution (the number and detail of its provisions) depends not on scale but on two variables: exit costs and relational density. The higher the exit costs and the greater the relational density of an economic relationship, the thicker the institution it requires. This explains a question economics has never clearly answered: why is corporate governance in certain dimensions thicker than a national constitution? Because relational density within a firm is extremely high (five heterogeneous stakeholder classes interweave: employees, users, partners, shareholders, founders) and exit costs for employees are non-trivial (livelihoods are at stake). Institutional economics partly captures exit costs through "asset specificity" but fails to capture relational density and has no unified framework for the two.

Self-Chiseling Necessity. Every institution has remainders. Therefore, every institution must contain mechanisms for chiseling itself — amendment procedures, review mechanisms, freedom-of-expression guarantees. An institution that lacks self-chiseling mechanisms is a construct that claims to have no remainders — the bad faith of a construct. Article V of the U.S. Constitution (the amendment process), the Preamble's "a more perfect Union" (comparative, not superlative), and the Ninth Amendment (unenumerated rights are not nonexistent rights) are all exemplary self-chiseling mechanisms. Economics has never discussed institutional self-chiseling, because within the efficiency framework, institutions are tools, and tools need not "reflect on themselves." But within the SAE framework, institutions are co-constructions — co-constructions necessarily have remainders, and remainders require release channels, lest they accumulate to the point of collapse.

The Minimization Principle. What need not be constructed should not be constructed, because every construction generates remainders. The goal of institutional design is not completeness (covering all cases) but sufficiency (covering only what mutual chiseling and walk-away cannot handle). This directly challenges an implicit tendency in institutional economics — more institutions are better (because more institutions reduce more transaction costs). SAE's criterion is different: every additional institutional provision is one more potential site of rigidity, misreading, or abuse. Fewer provisions, more precisely targeted, mean fewer remainders and a cleaner construction. Over-construction (such as the Eighteenth Amendment) is not "inefficiency" but an infringement on subjecthood.

5.3 Exit Freedom and the DD-Level Gradient of Economic Relationships

Paper 6's Thickness-Determination Principle generates a direct corollary for economics: exit freedom is the best indicator of where an economic relationship sits on the DD-level gradient.

Economic relationships with full exit freedom (anonymous market transactions, one-time purchases) are best described by Nash equilibrium, because these settings most closely approximate Kingdom-of-Means conditions — both parties serve as means to each other and need not perceive each other's purposes. Institutions in these settings do function primarily to "reduce transaction costs" (the 12DD description is accurate).

Economic relationships with frictional but possible exit (employment, long-term business partnerships) are less well described by Nash equilibrium. Agents in these settings possess varying degrees of 14DD and 15DD perception — employees have non-negotiables (professional dignity, growth opportunities, time boundaries), and employers who cannot see these will not retain them. Institutions in these settings do not merely reduce transaction costs; they protect both parties' end-status and create conditions for C-production. The proposition in the SAE corporate-principles framework (Qin 2026b) that "employees are ends, not resources" is not a moral slogan but an ontological description of the economic relationship at this level.

Economic relationships with extremely difficult or impossible exit (economic decisions within marriage, resource allocation in parent-child relationships, the citizen-state tax relationship) are almost entirely beyond the reach of Nash equilibrium. Agents in these settings are locked into the relationship; "voting with one's feet" is impossible or prohibitively costly; institutions must bear the full burden of counterbalancing. Economics has always been weakest in explaining these settings — family economics (Becker) attempted to describe marriage and parent-child relationships through utility maximization, with the result of translating the deepest human relationships into the thinnest language. The SAE framework holds that these settings are not arenas for 12DD rationality; they are fundamentally 14DD–15DD co-constructive relationships requiring 14DD–15DD language.

This gradient is itself a non-trivial prediction: as exit freedom decreases from high to low, the magnitude of deviation from Nash-equilibrium predictions should systematically increase, and the pattern of increase should not be random but directional along DD levels — increasingly exhibiting 14DD (non-negotiable guarding) and 15DD (two-subject C-production) features. This differs from the behavioral-economics prediction: behavioral economics predicts deviations due to "cognitive biases" (13DD), with deviations that are random or systematically biased toward loss aversion. The DD framework predicts that deviations are structural — biased toward higher-DD-level rationality.

5.4 "Shareholder Value Maximization" as a Kingdom-of-Means Doctrine

This section closes with a concrete case: Milton Friedman's (1970) canonical proposition — "the social responsibility of business is to increase its profits."

In fairness, Friedman was not entirely blind to the ethical dimension — he explicitly added "within the rules of the game" and "without deception or fraud," acknowledging that profit maximization must occur within the bounds of rules and honesty. Becker's family economics likewise does not "entirely ignore the other within the family" — it systematically treats altruism, intrafamily resource allocation, and household decision-making through maximizing behavior and stable preferences. These are not blind works.

But the problem is not blindness; it is that the translation loss after seeing is enormous. Friedman saw rules and honesty but translated them into "constraints" — rules are externally imposed boundaries, honesty is a strategic requirement of "long-run profit maximization," and the core objective function remains singular: shareholder profit. Becker saw altruism but translated it into "a parameter in the utility function" — I care about your well-being because your well-being has entered my utility function. In this translation, "rules," "honesty," and "altruism" are all re-encoded in means-language: they serve utility maximization, rather than existing independently of it. The 14DD non-negotiable — "even at a cost to profits I will not do this, not because rules forbid it but because doing it demotes a person to a means" — has no expression in this language.

The SAE framework derives, in its corporate-principles paper (Qin 2026b), a priority chain symmetrically opposite to Friedman's: Employees → Users → Partners → Shareholders → Founders. This chain derives from three independent logics — generative logic (each layer is a precondition of the next: no employees, no product; no product, no users…), power logic (the greater the power, the lower the priority, to prevent power from being used for self-interest), and exit logic (the higher the exit cost, the higher the protection priority, because those with high exit costs cannot protect themselves by "voting with their feet") — three independently derived logics converging on the same ordering.

Friedman's proposition is not "wrong" — within the pure 12DD Kingdom of Means, shareholder-value maximization is a logically consistent organizational principle. But it is incomplete: it cannot explain why the most successful firms are often not the most extreme in pursuing shareholder-value maximization; why employee loyalty positively correlates with long-run firm performance; why the financial cost of a breach of user trust far exceeds any short-term profit gain. These phenomena are "anomalies" within the 12DD framework; within the DD framework, they are structural necessities. When you treat everyone as means, everyone treats you as means, and what you get is Nash equilibrium — everyone is optimally responding, but no one is co-constructing. When you treat employees as ends, employees can begin to treat the firm as an end; co-construction becomes possible; and co-construction produces what Nash equilibrium cannot — C.

---

§6 Relations with Adjacent Frameworks

This paper's diagnosis does not occur in a vacuum. Behavioral economics and the capability approach have both identified inadequacies in the standard economic framework from different directions. This section briefly positions the DD framework relative to these two adjacent frameworks — not to contest territory but to help the reader see the respective ranges and the possibilities for cross-referencing.

6.1 Behavioral Economics: The Best Correction Inside the Kingdom of Means

The work of Kahneman, Tversky, and Thaler has been discussed repeatedly in §1 and §3. A summary positioning is offered here.

The contributions of behavioral economics are real, important, and irreplaceable. At the 13DD level, it has revealed systematic patterns of human cognitive bias — prospect theory, anchoring, framing effects, status quo bias — findings that have transformed economics's understanding of human decision-making and produced tools with real policy impact (nudge theory). Within the range of 13DD, behavioral economics requires no supplementation by the DD framework.

The divergence between the DD framework and behavioral economics lies not at 13DD but beyond it. Behavioral economics assumes that deviations from utility maximization are either cognitive biases (correctable) or "non-standard preferences" (incorporable into an extended utility function). The DD framework says: some deviations are neither biases nor non-standard preferences but the normal operation of higher-level rationality — 14DD non-negotiable guarding and 15DD two-subject C-production. These phenomena cannot be "corrected" (they are not errors) and cannot be folded into the utility function (they lie outside it altogether).

An analogy: behavioral economics is the best quality-control engineer inside the Kingdom of Means — it has precisely identified the execution errors of 12DD rationality and designed correction tools. The DD framework says: the quality control is excellent, but the production line you are controlling produces only means; some products — 14DD and 15DD products — are simply not on this line, and your QC tools do not apply to them.

The two frameworks are not competitors but nested. All findings of behavioral economics at the 13DD level remain valid within the DD framework. What the DD framework adds are two levels above 13DD and the new predictions they generate.

6.2 Sen's Capability Approach: The Right Intuition, a Different Architecture

Amartya Sen's capability approach is one of the most profound philosophical challenges to the standard economic framework. Sen (1985, 1999) argued that well-being should be measured not by utility but by "functionings" (what a person can actually do and be) and "capabilities" (the set of functionings a person has real freedom to achieve). A person may report high utility (an "adapted" person in poverty may report happiness) while having low capability (she cannot obtain education, participate in politics, or live with dignity).

Sen's intuition resonates deeply with the DD framework at the 14DD level. He is effectively saying: some things cannot be reduced to preferences — "living with dignity" is not a preference option but a non-negotiable condition. Economics translates "dignity" into "preference for dignity" (willingness to pay for dignity); Sen rightly rejects this translation. On this point, the DD framework and Sen stand together.

But the two frameworks are architecturally different. Sen's capability approach is list-based — it enumerates a set of core capabilities (Nussbaum developed this into a specific list: life, bodily health, bodily integrity, senses/imagination/thought, emotions, practical reason, affiliation, other species, play, control over one's environment) and proposes that these capabilities should be guaranteed above some threshold. The DD framework is generative — it does not list; it derives from the dimensional sequence why certain things are irreducible to preferences (because they operate at 14DD, outside the 12DD utility function) and why certain relationships are irreducible to single-agent utility maximization (because they operate at 15DD and require two-subject C-production to describe).

The advantage of list-based architecture is intuitive, actionable, and easily grasped by policymakers. Its disadvantage: where does the list come from? Why these capabilities and not others? Nussbaum appeals to "overlapping consensus," but this is essentially empirical — different cultures may consensus on different lists. The DD framework offers a generative mechanism: non-negotiables do not come from a list but from the cognitive structure of 14DD — any subject possessing 14DD rationality will produce non-negotiables, whose specific content varies by individual but whose structural fact (the existence of non-exchangeable things) is universal.

Sen does not need the DD framework to do what he does. The DD framework does not need Sen to do what it does. But cross-referencing between the two is valuable: Sen offers the DD framework a rich body of economic and policy case studies; the DD framework offers Sen's capability approach a generative ontological foundation — not replacing the list but explaining why the list exists.

6.3 Institutional Economics: The 12DD Projection of Co-Construction

The relationship with Coase, North, and Williamson has been discussed in detail in §5.1. Only a positioning summary is offered here.

Institutional economics is the DD framework's closest neighbor at the institutional level. It has seen institutional functions (reducing transaction costs); the DD framework sees institutional motivations (protecting agents' end-status, creating conditions for co-construction). Function is the 12DD projection of motivation — accurate but incomplete. Institutional economics does not need to be "replaced"; it needs to be reconnected to its own ontological foundation: the intuition of institutional designers (the Enlightenment intuition that "a person is an end, not a means") is correct; the technology of institutional economics (transaction-cost analysis, governance-structure selection) is useful; what is missing is one layer of translation. SAE provides that translation.

---

§7 Non-Trivial Predictions

The value of this paper will ultimately be judged by its predictions. The predictions below are not direct restatements of the framework but conclusions derived from it that would not be expected without it. Each prediction is annotated with an evidence tier: directly operationalizable (ready for experimental design), medium bridge (requiring some operationalization bridging), highest-risk (weakest empirical bridge, but highest impact if confirmed).

7.1 Three-Layer Neural Dissociation of Ultimatum-Game Rejections [directly operationalizable]

Prediction: Rejection behavior in the ultimatum game can be experimentally separated into at least three structurally different types, each with distinct cognitive profiles and neural signatures.

Experimental design highlights:

(a) Separating 12DD from 14DD rejections. Manipulate cognitive load (dual-task paradigm). Prediction: under high cognitive load, 12DD rejections (loss-aversion driven) decrease (because the automatic loss-aversion response is disrupted) while 14DD rejections (norm-guarding) do not decrease or even increase (because 14DD operations are will-driven and do not depend on fine-grained cognitive resources). The existing literature has no unified prediction for the relationship between cognitive load and fairness rejection — different experiments show varying sensitivity to information, intent, and anonymity. The DD framework's unique contribution is predicting a specific dissociation pattern: the same "rejection" behavior should bifurcate into two curves moving in opposite directions under high load (12DD declining, 14DD stable or rising), rather than shifting as a unit. This dissociation pattern is unique to the DD framework.

(b) Separating 12DD from 15DD rejections. Manipulate anonymity and intent information. Prediction: 12DD rejections are insensitive to anonymity (loss aversion does not care who the other party is); 15DD rejections are highly sensitive to anonymity (the core of 15DD operations is perceiving the specific person across from you). Further: when the responder is told "the split ratio was randomly determined by a computer" (eliminating proposer-intent information), 15DD rejections should drop sharply (no "person" to perceive), while 12DD and 14DD rejections remain unchanged.

(c) Neural-signature predictions for the three layers. 12DD rejections should primarily activate brain regions associated with loss aversion (amygdala, anterior insula); 14DD rejections should primarily activate regions associated with norm representation and conflict monitoring (dorsolateral prefrontal cortex, anterior cingulate cortex); 15DD rejections should primarily activate regions associated with mentalizing and social cognition (temporoparietal junction, medial prefrontal cortex), but with speed characteristics different from classic mentalizing tasks — well-trained 15DD operations can be fast (the speed U-curve prediction).

7.2 14DD vs. 12DD Experimental Separation of the Endowment Effect [directly operationalizable]

Prediction: The endowment effect can be separated into two structurally different phenomena — a 12DD loss-aversion-driven endowment effect and a 14DD non-negotiability-driven endowment effect — with systematically different responses to experimental manipulation.

Experimental design: Have subjects valuate two classes of items — (A) randomly assigned standardized items (mugs, pens — classic endowment-effect paradigm) and (B) items the subjects bring themselves that hold personal significance (photographs, mementos, handwritten letters). Measure the WTA–WTP gap for both groups.

Prediction matrix:

If Groups A and B exhibit systematically separated response patterns along these five dimensions, the DD level structure within the endowment effect is confirmed.

7.3 Behavioral Change in the Prisoner's Dilemma Following 15DD Condition Activation [medium bridge]

Prediction: Dyads that have undergone 15DD condition activation exhibit, in the prisoner's dilemma, not "higher cooperation rates" but "shorter decision times and lower cognitive load" — because for them this is not a decision requiring deliberation.

The operationalization of 15DD conditions is the main bridging difficulty. Suggested approach: before entering the prisoner's dilemma, have the dyad complete an integrative-negotiation task (requiring production of a new solution C that neither party previously possessed), and ensure the task is successfully completed. Prediction: dyads that successfully produced C show, in the subsequent prisoner's dilemma, (1) significantly higher cooperation rates than controls, (2) significantly shorter decision times than controls, and (3) significantly lower self-reported cognitive load. The critical non-triviality lies in (2) and (3) — behavioral economics can predict (1) ("trust was established, hence more cooperation") but would not predict (2) and (3). Within the behavioral-economics framework, cooperation requires overcoming the temptation to defect — an "effort" that should be slower and more effortful, not faster and easier. The DD framework says: under 15DD conditions, cooperation is not the product of effort but a natural cognitive output, hence faster and easier.

Control condition: have another group of dyads complete a zero-sum allocation task (dividing a fixed sum — pure haggling) before entering the prisoner's dilemma. Prediction: even dyads that reached a division agreement will not exhibit the above effects in the subsequent prisoner's dilemma — because zero-sum allocation is a 12DD operation and does not activate 15DD.

7.4 Exit Freedom Predicts the DD-Level Distribution of Economic Behavior [medium bridge]

Prediction: In economic relationships with lower exit freedom, the proportion of economic behavior exhibiting 14DD and 15DD features is higher; in relationships with higher exit freedom, the proportion exhibiting 12DD features is higher.

Operationalization: collect decision data across multiple types of economic relationships (anonymous market transactions, short-term employment, long-term employment, family firms, economic decisions within marriage), code the DD-level features of each decision (12DD: pure interest calculation; 14DD: non-negotiable present; 15DD: attempted two-subject C-production), with exit freedom (operationalized as: the number of actual alternatives and switching costs) as the independent variable.

Predicted direction: not a linear "lower exit freedom, more irrational" (the behavioral-economics prediction) but "lower exit freedom, more operation at higher DD levels" — increased frequency of non-negotiables, increased frequency of C-production attempts, decreased frequency of pure interest calculation. This is not "more irrationality" but "a different type of rationality taking over."

7.5 The 15DD Hypothesis of Trader "Gut Feel" [highest-risk]

Prediction: Among the snap judgments (sub-second) made by senior traders, some are not 12DD pattern recognition ("animal spirits" in Keynes's sense) but 15DD rapid other-perception — the trader is perceiving attitudinal shifts in the agents on the other side of the market.

This is the paper's highest-risk prediction, with the weakest empirical bridge, but the highest impact if confirmed.

The theoretical basis is the speed U-curve: the speed of 12DD is empty speed (pattern recognition, no subject); the speed of 15DD is full speed (everything present but no longer requiring stepwise verification). Senior traders, through years of training, may reach intuitive speed in their 15DD operations (if such operations exist) — "feeling" a shift in market sentiment within hundreds of milliseconds, a "feeling" that is not statistical identification of price patterns but perception of the attitudes of the people on the other side.

Testable corollaries: (a) Trader "gut feel" decisions should significantly deteriorate when social-information cues are removed (presenting only price data without order-book depth or volume patterns — the latter two carry information about other agents' behavior). If "gut feel" is pure 12DD pattern recognition, removing these cues should have little effect. (b) Traders who self-report stronger "gut feel" should outperform those with weaker self-reports on standard mentalizing tasks (e.g., Reading the Mind in the Eyes Test) — if gut feel is a form of 15DD other-perception, it should correlate with general other-perception ability. (c) The neural activation patterns of gut-feel decisions should partially overlap with the social-cognition network (temporoparietal junction, medial prefrontal cortex), not be confined to visual and executive-function regions associated with pattern recognition.

Marked as highest-risk: experimental design is difficult, cross-contamination risk is high (traders' pattern recognition and social perception may not be cleanly separable in practice), and sample sizes are constrained. But if two of the three corollaries are supported, they provide strong evidence for the economic application of the speed U-curve.

7.6 Experimental Separation of True C / False C / Honest No Deal [directly operationalizable; flagship prediction]

This is the paper's most central prediction and the point of greatest divergence between the DD framework and existing economics / negotiation theory. It is not asking "why do some deals fail to close" (behavioral economics has extensive work on this) but asking a question economics has never systematically posed: are some no-deals more rational than false deals?

Prediction: In economic negotiation, three outcome types can be experimentally distinguished — true C (a new solution in which neither party surrenders a non-negotiable), false C (a compromise in which at least one party surrenders a non-negotiable), and honest no deal (a legitimate termination after both parties confirm that C does not exist) — and the three types have systematically different effects on participants' subsequent behavior and relationship quality.

This prediction directly connects to the flagship prediction of the companion paper (Beyond Fast and Slow). The present paper specifies it further in the economic context.

Experimental design: have dyads conduct a structured economic negotiation (e.g., negotiating terms for a business partnership) in which each party has pre-designated "non-negotiables" (e.g., one party's bottom line is that data privacy is non-negotiable; the other's is that pricing autonomy is non-negotiable). Record the outcome and classify:

• True C: Both parties report that their non-negotiable was not surrendered, and the outcome is a new solution that neither party previously possessed.
• False C: Both parties reach an agreement, but at least one reports having been forced to surrender or partially surrender a non-negotiable.
• Honest no deal: Both parties confirm that no solution preserving both non-negotiables could be found, and the negotiation is terminated.

Prediction matrix:

The critical non-triviality: economics predicts that "reaching a deal" is always superior to "not reaching a deal" (deal > no deal). The DD framework predicts: honest no deal is superior to false C in long-run relationship quality. This is because the non-negotiable surrendered in a false C will return in the form of resentment, distrust, and demands to renegotiate — what is suppressed at 14DD does not disappear but transfers into remainders. An honest no deal preserves both parties' 14DD integrity and leaves space for a future attempt at C should conditions change.

Operationalization reinforcement: revealed-preference verification. Self-reports ("did I surrender my non-negotiable?") are subject to cognitive-dissonance and post-hoc rationalization and are insufficiently reliable. A behavioral verification mechanism is recommended: one week after the negotiation, give subjects an anonymous opportunity to tear up the agreement — tearing up costs a small amount (e.g., forgoing a portion of participation compensation). Prediction: the anonymous tear-up rate in the false-C group is significantly higher than in the true-C group (the suppressed 14DD seeks rebound); the tear-up rate in the true-C group is extremely low (the agreement genuinely satisfied both parties' non-negotiables). Verifying the authenticity of C through actual economic behavior (revealed preference) rather than questionnaires is more consistent with the empirical tradition of economics and converts the true-C / false-C classification from subjective report to observable behavioral separation.

If the data support the conclusion that "honest no deal is superior to false C in long-run relationship quality," this directly falsifies an implicit assumption in the core grammar of economics — "reaching a deal is always better than not reaching one."

7.7 Institutional Self-Chiseling Predicts Organizational Resilience [highest-risk]

Prediction: Economic organizations with explicit self-chiseling mechanisms (regular institutional review, independent feedback channels, guarantees that bad news flows upward, declarations that principles are amendable) exhibit higher survival rates and faster recovery after external shocks than otherwise equivalent organizations lacking such mechanisms.

This prediction derives directly from Paper 6's self-chiseling necessity proposition and the remainder-declaration concept. It corresponds to the argument in §5.2: a construct that dares to acknowledge its own incompleteness is more resilient than one that pretends to be perfect.

Operationalization: in corporate-governance data, code a "self-chiseling mechanism index" (whether independent employee feedback channels exist, whether regular institutional reviews are conducted, whether governance documents include "known limitations" clauses, whether bearers of bad news are institutionally protected). Use this index as the independent variable and firms' three-year survival rate and revenue-recovery curve after major external shocks (industry downturns, regulatory changes, technological disruption) as the dependent variables.

Marked as highest-risk: the operationalization bridge is weak (coding self-chiseling mechanisms involves qualitative judgment), the sample may suffer from selection bias (firms that establish self-chiseling mechanisms may already be better), and causal inference is difficult. But if the effect remains significant after controlling for firm size, industry, age, and financial health, this would constitute the first empirical evidence for institutional self-chiseling in economics.

---

§8 Open Questions

This paper has accomplished what it can: diagnosing the incompleteness of the economic framework under Kingdom-of-Ends conditions, exhibiting the structure of economic rationality at the 14DD and 15DD levels, re-diagnosing three canonical models, and presenting seven testable non-trivial predictions. The following questions exceed the scope of this paper and are left for subsequent work.

8.1 15DD Facing 14DD

This paper's diagnosis has assumed an ideal condition: both parties possess 15DD perceptual capacity. But the most common real-world predicament is precisely 15DD facing 14DD — I can perceive that you are a self-as-an-end, but you cannot see me. You have your non-negotiables, you are entirely rational at your level, but you simply do not treat me as an end.

The SAE framework can offer walk-away — "the conditions for C do not obtain here" is itself a 15DD cognitive output, and no deal is a legitimate output. But walk-away is not always possible. Economic decisions within marriage, power asymmetries in employment, the citizen-state tax relationship — in these settings, the 15DD party is locked into a relationship with the 14DD party, with exit costs that are prohibitively high or impossible.

In these settings, the nurturing function of institutions becomes critical: can good institutions help 14DD subjects gradually develop 15DD perceptual capacity? If so, through what mechanisms? If not, what can institutions at least do to protect the 15DD party from being exploited by the 14DD party? Answering these questions requires more fine-grained institutional analysis than this paper provides and belongs to the scope of subsequent papers in this series.

8.2 The Conditions and Boundaries of Nurturing

Directly related to 8.1: nurturing in the SAE framework is an acknowledged transitional mode — a mature subject helps an immature subject develop. But nurturing raises two issues not addressed in this paper.

First, where is the boundary between nurturing and colonization? "For your own good" is the most common self-justification for nurturing and the most common disguise for colonization. A large body of "paternalistic intervention" in economics — from nudges to mandatory savings to sugar taxes — claims to be nurturing, but is it helping subjects develop or deciding for them? The DD framework's direction is clear (nurturing should increase the subject's capacity rather than substitute for the subject's choice), but specific judgment criteria require case-by-case analysis.

Second, who bears the economic cost of nurturing? Nurturing is not free — training employees, educating consumers, building institutional infrastructure all have costs. The 12DD framework asks "what is the ROI of nurturing" — a question that already demotes nurturing to a means. The DD framework needs to develop a nurturing economics that does not take ROI as its ultimate criterion. This is an open question.

8.3 Measuring C

This paper has repeatedly invoked the concept of "C-production" — two subjects produce a new solution without either surrendering non-negotiables. But how is C measured in economics?

Standard economics can measure whether a transaction was completed, the distribution ratio, and each party's satisfaction. These measurement tools are insufficient for C — the key features of C are "novelty" (not in either party's initial solution set) and "non-sacrifice" (both parties' non-negotiables are preserved), and neither feature has a counterpart in existing economic measurement frameworks.

The flagship prediction in §7.6 proposes a preliminary measurement scheme (the true-C / false-C / honest-no-deal classification and tracking of subsequent effects), but a more general theory of C-measurement — capable of identifying and quantifying C-production in any economic-negotiation setting — is an important open question. Building such a theory may require collaboration across management science, negotiation theory, and experimental economics.

8.4 The Self-Fulfilling Effect of Frameworks

§1 touched on a subtle issue: the 12DD ontological presupposition of economics feeds back into reality. When every MBA student is taught that "rational agents maximize utility," they are trained to read the world in 12DD terms — treating employees as resources, users as traffic, partners as supply-chain nodes. The self-fulfilling effect of frameworks means that the Kingdom of Means is not merely a description but a self-reinforcing prophecy.

The question runs in the other direction as well: if the DD framework were widely disseminated, would it also produce a self-fulfilling effect — people exhibiting more 15DD behavior because they are taught "you should treat others as ends"? If so, would this behavior be genuine 15DD (truly perceiving the other as an end) or simulated 15DD (performing "treating the other as an end" for social approval)? Genuine 15DD and simulated 15DD should have distinguishable long-run behavioral differences (simulated 15DD would degrade to 12DD under pressure or in anonymous conditions; genuine 15DD would not), but this distinction is itself a research question.

8.5 There Must Be Remainders

All frameworks are incomplete; all have remainders. The DD framework is no exception.

This paper has used the DD framework to diagnose the incompleteness of economics, but where does the DD framework's own incompleteness lie? Remainders we can identify include: how to empirically demarcate the boundaries between DD levels (the 12DD–13DD boundary, the 14DD–15DD boundary); whether the operationalization of 15DD in experimental designs is sufficiently clean (whether the "15DD condition activation" in §7.3 truly activates 15DD rather than other factors); and the DD framework's explanatory power for group-level economic phenomena (market bubbles, financial crises, institutional evolution) has not yet been developed.

The remainders we do not know are more numerous. As the Remainder Declaration in the Interstellar Civilization Charter states: "We may have missed things we do not even know we have missed. This is the remainder of the remainder. We remain humble before it."

Whether this paper's diagnosis is accurate will ultimately be judged by whether the predictions in §7 can be empirically tested and falsified. If predictions are confirmed, the framework gains incremental support. If predictions are falsified, the framework requires revision. This is not the fragility of the framework; it is its honesty. A framework that does not dare to place itself in a position where it can be falsified does not deserve to be taken seriously.

---

References

SAE Framework

• Qin, H. (2024a). Systems, Emergence, and the Conditions of Personhood. Zenodo. DOI: 10.5281/zenodo.18528813.
• Qin, H. (2024b). Internal Colonization and the Reconstruction of Subjecthood. Zenodo. DOI: 10.5281/zenodo.18666645.
• Qin, H. (2024c). The Complete Self-as-an-End Framework. Zenodo. DOI: 10.5281/zenodo.18727327.
• Qin, H. (2025a). Beyond Fast and Slow: A Four-Layer Cognitive Architecture from Dimensional Sequence Theory. Zenodo. [forthcoming]
• Qin, H. (2025b). SAE Judgment and Aesthetics: In Tribute to Kant. Zenodo. DOI: 10.5281/zenodo.19296710.
• Qin, H. (2026a). How Is Institution Possible: From Inter-Ontological Remainder to Co-Constructive Framework. Zenodo. [forthcoming]
• Qin, H. (2026b). SAE Corporate Principles: A General Framework. [working paper]
• Qin, H. (2026c). Metaphysics of Self-as-an-End: Dimensional Sentence-Form Theory. Zenodo. DOI: 10.5281/zenodo.18894567.
• Qin, H. (2026d). SAE Methodological Overview: The Chisel-Construct Cycle. Zenodo. DOI: 10.5281/zenodo.18842450.
• Qin, H. (2026e). How Is the Inter-Ontological Possible: The Subjective Conditions and Emergent Structure of Freedom. Zenodo. DOI: 10.5281/zenodo.19297847.
• Qin, H. (2026f). One's Own Law: The SAE Critique of Ethics and Morality. Zenodo. DOI: 10.5281/zenodo.19037566.

Economics

• Akerlof, G. A., & Kranton, R. E. (2000). Economics and Identity. Quarterly Journal of Economics, 115(3), 715-753.
• Baker, G., Gibbons, R., & Murphy, K. J. (2002). Relational Contracts and the Theory of the Firm. Quarterly Journal of Economics, 117(1), 39-84.
• Becker, G. S. (1981). A Treatise on the Family. Harvard University Press.
• Bolton, G. E., & Ockenfels, A. (2000). ERC: A Theory of Equity, Reciprocity, and Competition. American Economic Review, 90(1), 166-193.
• Coase, R. H. (1937). The Nature of the Firm. Economica, 4(16), 386-405.
• Fehr, E., & Schmidt, K. M. (1999). A Theory of Fairness, Competition, and Cooperation. Quarterly Journal of Economics, 114(3), 817-868.
• Friedman, M. (1970). The Social Responsibility of Business Is to Increase Its Profits. The New York Times Magazine, September 13.
• Hart, O., & Moore, J. (1990). Property Rights and the Nature of the Firm. Journal of Political Economy, 98(6), 1119-1158.
• Kahneman, D. (2011). Thinking, Fast and Slow. Farrar, Straus and Giroux.
• Kahneman, D., Knetsch, J. L., & Thaler, R. H. (1990). Experimental Tests of the Endowment Effect and the Coase Theorem. Journal of Political Economy, 98(6), 1325-1348.
• Kahneman, D., & Tversky, A. (1979). Prospect Theory: An Analysis of Decision under Risk. Econometrica, 47(2), 263-291.
• Nash, J. (1950). Equilibrium Points in N-Person Games. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 36(1), 48-49.
• North, D. C. (1990). Institutions, Institutional Change and Economic Performance. Cambridge University Press.
• Sen, A. (1985). Commodities and Capabilities. North-Holland.
• Sen, A. (1999). Development as Freedom. Knopf.
• Smith, A. (1776). An Inquiry into the Nature and Causes of the Wealth of Nations.
• Thaler, R. H. (2015). Misbehaving: The Making of Behavioral Economics. W. W. Norton.
• Thaler, R. H., & Sunstein, C. R. (2008). Nudge: Improving Decisions about Health, Wealth, and Happiness. Yale University Press.
• Williamson, O. E. (1985). The Economic Institutions of Capitalism. Free Press.

Philosophy, Psychology, and Mathematics

• De Neys, W. (2023). Advancing Theorizing about Fast-and-Slow Thinking. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 46, e111.
• Ginges, J., Atran, S., Medin, D., & Shikaki, K. (2007). Sacred Bounds on Rational Resolution of Violent Political Conflict. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 104(18), 7357-7360.
• Gödel, K. (1931). Über formal unentscheidbare Sätze der Principia Mathematica und verwandter Systeme I. Monatshefte für Mathematik und Physik, 38, 173-198.
• Kant, I. (1785). Grundlegung zur Metaphysik der Sitten [Groundwork of the Metaphysics of Morals].
• Nussbaum, M. C. (2000). Women and Human Development: The Capabilities Approach. Cambridge University Press.
• Tetlock, P. E. (2003). Thinking the Unthinkable: Sacred Values and Taboo Cognitions. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 7(7), 320-324.