Historical analysis uncovers how blame institutions shape the cost of attribution, indicating trends over time.
The payoff studied across this programme has always carried a term that prices unattributed failure: every agent bears Φ/2 per unit of blame assigned to no one. This paper names that term — a demand for attribution — and shows the name is exact: the marginal valuation of attribution rises with the diffuse burden at the protocol-free, state-free rate ∂² U / ∂ c₀ ∂ Φ = 1/2. Holding the demand constant, the historical succession of blame institutions — sacrifice, witch trial, pillory, negligence, safe harbour — becomes the comparative statics of one program: attribute where the era’s attribution cost is lowest. A retaliation metric selects the peripheral; an evidentiary metric selects the record-rich monitor: the meticulous auditor is the cheapest sacrifice of the evidentiary era. The transition between metrics is priced: binding the adjudicator’s posterior to evidence forces the excusal α₀ → 0, maximizes the blame–reach coupling, and minimizes the trap floor — inference discipline ends reach-free blame and arms the penalty paradox in one move. Unconditional self-attribution survives inside conscientious monitors, whom the evidentiary corner then consumes. What is conserved across eras is the demand, never the bill.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Mikio Hanaeda (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: