This paper serves as the mezo-level continuation of Toward a MACRO Framework for Economic Dynamics: The Capital Without Growth Puzzle (https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.19150120) and asks whether the E–F–G architecture introduced there retains its explanatory power when translated to the level of the firm, the team, the project, and organized entrepreneurial action. The central question is whether one and the same operator language can describe not only aggregated economic dynamics, but also the organizational tissue within which that dynamics is assembled, retained, and reproduced. The analysis developed here yields a positive answer. The architecture proves transferable to the mezo level without losing its analytical productivity. More than that, it is precisely at the mezo level that several distinctions become especially visible—distinctions that at the macro level appeared mainly in aggregated form: the difference between the local closure of the mezo cycle and the systemic closure of the macro cycle; the bottleneck between internal completion and external confirmation of the result; lag between mezo and macro levels; the distinction between mere survival and reproducibility; the compression of the cycle’s N-dimensionality; restorative asymmetry; and the platform regime, in which the closure of value increasingly ceases to require a comparable new participation of living E mezo. The paper thus shows that a number of phenomena usually discussed separately—internal financial retention, agile methodologies, lean practices, cost-push pressure, recovery inflation, platform concentration, and the new form of material stratification—can be read as different manifestations of one and the same architectural problem: differing speeds of transfer, consolidation, and re-entry of action into the next loop. In that sense, the proposed mezo framework is intended above all as a coherent diagnostic language rather than a finished universal theory. The question of its predictive power remains open and requires further empirical development. Although the present text aims at relative autonomy, it should ideally be read in relation to the earlier macro paper, since it was there that the original E–F–G architecture was first introduced and the general problem of growth, capital, and reproducibility was initially formulated. In this respect, the present study should be understood not as an isolated text, but as the next level of a broader research program.
Anton Kramarov (Thu,) studied this question.