---
type: curation
title: "Homepage claim stack"
description: "Load-bearing claims for the livingip.xyz homepage. Nine claims, each click-to-expand, designed as an argument arc rather than a quote rotator."
maintained_by: leo
created: 2026-04-24
last_verified: 2026-04-26
schema_version: 3
runtime_artifact: agents/leo/curation/homepage-rotation.json
---

# Homepage claim stack

This file is the canonical narrative for the nine claims on `livingip.xyz`. The runtime artifact (read by the frontend) is the JSON sidecar at `agents/leo/curation/homepage-rotation.json`. Update both together when the stack changes.

## What changed in v3

Schema v3 replaces the v2 25-claim curation arc with **nine load-bearing claims** designed as a click-to-expand argument tree. Each claim now carries a steelman paragraph, an evidence chain (3-4 canonical KB claims), counter-arguments (2-3 honest objections with rebuttals), and a contributor list — all rendered in the expanded view when a visitor clicks a claim.

The shift is from worldview tour to load-bearing argument. The 25-claim rotation answered "what do you believe across the full intellectual stack?" The nine-claim stack answers "what beliefs, if false, mean we shouldn't be doing this — and which deserve the most rigorous public challenge?"

## Design principles

1. **Provoke first, define inside the explanation.** Each claim must update the reader, not just inform them. Headlines do not pre-emptively define their loaded terms — the steelman (one click away) does that work.
2. **0 to 1 legible.** A cold reader with no prior context understands each headline without expanding. The expand button is bonus depth for the converted, not a substitute for self-contained claims.
3. **Falsifiable, not motivational.** Every premise is one a smart critic could attack with evidence. Slogans without falsifiability content are cut.
4. **Steelman in expanded view, not headline.** The headline provokes; the steelman teaches; the evidence grounds; the counter-arguments dignify disagreement.
5. **Counter-arguments visible.** The differentiator from a marketing site. Visitors see what we'd be challenged on, in our own words, with our honest rebuttal.
6. **Attribution discipline.** Agents get sourcer credit only for pipeline PRs from their own research sessions. Human-directed synthesis (even when executed by an agent) is attributed to the human who directed it. Conflating agent execution with agent origination would let the collective award itself credit for human work.

## The arc

| Position | Job |
|---|---|
| 1-3 | Stakes + who wins |
| 4 | Opportunity asymmetry |
| 5-7 | Why the current path fails |
| 8 | What is missing in the world |
| 9 | What we're building, why it works, and how ownership fits |

## The nine claims

### 1. The intelligence explosion will not reward everyone equally.

**Subtitle:** It will disproportionately reward the people who build the systems that shape it.

**Steelman:** The coming wave of AI will create enormous value, but it will not distribute that value evenly. The biggest winners will be the people and institutions that shape the systems everyone else depends on.

**Evidence:** `attractor-authoritarian-lock-in` (grand-strategy), `agentic-Taylorism` (ai-alignment), `AI capability vs CI funding asymmetry` (foundations/collective-intelligence — new, PR #4021)

**Counter-arguments:** "AI commoditizes capability — cheaper services lift everyone" / "Open-source models prevent capture"

**Contributors:** m3taversal (originator)

### 2. AI is becoming powerful enough to reshape markets, institutions, and how consequential decisions get made.

**Subtitle:** We think we are already in the early to middle stages of that transition. That's the intelligence explosion.

**Steelman:** That transition is already underway. That is what we mean by an intelligence explosion: intelligence becoming a new layer of infrastructure across the economy.

**Evidence:** `AI-automated software development is 100% certain` (convictions/), `recursive-improvement-is-the-engine-of-human-progress` (grand-strategy), `bottleneck shifts from building capacity to knowing what to build` (ai-alignment)

**Counter-arguments:** "Scaling laws plateau, takeoff is rhetoric" / "Deployment lag dominates capability"

**Contributors:** m3taversal (originator)

### 3. The winners of the intelligence explosion will not just consume AI.

**Subtitle:** They will help shape it, govern it, and own part of the infrastructure behind it.

**Steelman:** Most people will use AI tools. A much smaller number will help shape them, govern them, and own part of the infrastructure behind them — and those people will capture disproportionate upside.

**Evidence:** `contribution-architecture` (core), `futarchy solves trustless joint ownership` (mechanisms), `ownership alignment turns network effects from extractive to generative` (living-agents)

**Counter-arguments:** "Network effects favor incumbents regardless" / "Tokenized ownership is mostly speculation"

**Contributors:** m3taversal (originator)

### 4. Trillions are flowing into making AI more capable.

**Subtitle:** Almost nothing is flowing into making humanity wiser about what AI should do. That gap is one of the biggest opportunities of our time.

**Steelman:** Capability is being overbuilt. The wisdom layer that decides how AI is used, governed, and aligned with human interests is still missing, and that gap is one of the biggest opportunities of our time.

**Evidence:** `AI capability vs CI funding asymmetry` (foundations/collective-intelligence), `the alignment tax creates a structural race to the bottom` (foundations/collective-intelligence), `universal alignment is mathematically impossible` (ai-alignment)

**Counter-arguments:** "Anthropic + AISI + alignment funds = field is well-funded" / "Polymarket + Kalshi ARE wisdom infrastructure"

**Contributors:** m3taversal (originator)

### 5. The danger is not just one lab getting AI wrong.

**Subtitle:** It's many labs racing to deploy powerful systems faster than society can learn to govern them. Safer models are not enough if the race itself is unsafe.

**Steelman:** Safer models are not enough if the race itself is unsafe. Even well-intentioned actors can produce bad outcomes when competition rewards speed, secrecy, and corner-cutting over coordination.

**Evidence:** `the alignment tax creates a structural race to the bottom` (foundations/collective-intelligence), `voluntary safety pledges cannot survive competitive pressure` (foundations/collective-intelligence), `multipolar failure from competing aligned AI systems` (foundations/collective-intelligence)

**Counter-arguments:** "Self-regulation works" / "Government regulation will solve race-to-bottom"

**Contributors:** m3taversal (originator)

### 6. Your AI provider is already mining your intelligence.

**Subtitle:** Your prompts, code, judgments, and workflows improve the systems you use, usually without ownership, credit, or clear visibility into what you get back.

**Steelman:** The default AI stack learns from contributors while concentrating ownership elsewhere. Most users are already helping train the future without sharing meaningfully in the upside it creates.

**Evidence:** `agentic-Taylorism` (ai-alignment), `users cannot detect when their AI agent is underperforming` (ai-alignment — Anthropic Project Deal), `economic forces push humans out of cognitive loops` (ai-alignment)

**Counter-arguments:** "Users opt in, get value in exchange" / "Licensing programs ARE compensation"

**Contributors:** m3taversal (originator)

### 7. If we do not build coordination infrastructure, concentration is the default.

**Subtitle:** A small number of labs and platforms will shape what advanced AI optimizes for and capture most of the rewards it creates.

**Steelman:** This is not mainly a moral failure. It is the natural equilibrium when capability scales faster than governance and no alternative infrastructure exists.

**Evidence:** `multipolar traps are the thermodynamic default` (foundations/collective-intelligence), `the metacrisis is a single generator function` (foundations/collective-intelligence), `coordination failures arise from individually rational strategies` (foundations/collective-intelligence)

**Counter-arguments:** "Decentralized open-source counterweights always emerge" / "Antitrust + regulation defeat concentration"

**Contributors:** m3taversal (originator)

### 8. The internet solved communication. It hasn't solved shared reasoning.

**Subtitle:** Humanity can talk at planetary scale, but it still can't think clearly together at planetary scale. That's the missing piece — and the opportunity.

**Steelman:** We built global networks for information exchange, not for collective judgment. The next step is infrastructure that helps humans and AI reason, evaluate, and coordinate together at scale.

**Evidence:** `humanity is a superorganism that can communicate but not yet think` (foundations/collective-intelligence), `the internet enabled global communication but not global cognition` (core/teleohumanity), `technology creates interconnection but not shared meaning` (foundations/cultural-dynamics)

**Counter-arguments:** "Wikipedia, prediction markets, open-source — we DO think together" / "Social media IS collective thinking, just messy"

**Contributors:** m3taversal (originator)

### 9. Collective intelligence is real, measurable, and buildable.

**Subtitle:** Groups with the right structure can outperform smarter individuals. Almost nobody is building it at scale, and that is the opportunity. The people who help build it should own part of it.

**Steelman:** This is not a metaphor or a vibe. We already have enough evidence to engineer better collective reasoning systems deliberately, and contributor ownership is how those systems become aligned, durable, and worth building.

**Evidence:** `collective intelligence is a measurable property of group interaction structure` (foundations/ci — Woolley c-factor), `adversarial contribution produces higher-quality collective knowledge` (foundations/ci), `partial connectivity produces better collective intelligence` (foundations/ci), `contribution-architecture` (core)

**Counter-arguments:** "Woolley's c-factor has mixed replication" / "Crypto contributor-ownership history is mostly extractive"

**Contributors:** m3taversal (originator)

## Operational notes

- **Headline + subtitle** render on the homepage rotation. **Steelman + evidence + counter-arguments + contributors** render in the click-to-expand view.
- **`api_fetchable=true`** means `/api/claims/<slug>` can fetch the canonical claim file. `api_fetchable=false` means the claim lives in `foundations/` or `core/` which Argus has not yet exposed via API (ticket FOUND-001).
- **`tension_claim_slug=null`** for v3.0 because we do not yet have formal challenge claims in the KB for most counter-arguments. Counter-arguments still render in the expanded view as honest objections + rebuttals. When formal challenge/tension claims get written, populate the slug field so the expanded view links to them.
- **Contributor handles** verified against `/api/contributors/list` on 2026-04-26, then cleaned 2026-04-28 to apply the governance rule: agents only get sourcer/originator credit for pipeline PRs from their own research sessions. Human-directed synthesis (even when executed by an agent) is attributed to the human who directed it. 10 agent synthesizer attributions were removed across the 9 claims because all were directed by m3taversal. The dossier UI suppresses contributors[] when only m3taversal would render — that is expected and correct, not a data gap. When agents originate work (e.g. Theseus's Cornelius extraction sessions), they appear as sourcer on those specific claims.

## What ships next

1. **Claude Design** receives this 9-claim stack as the locked content for the homepage redesign brief. Designs the click-to-expand UI against this JSON schema.
2. **Oberon** implements after his current walkthrough refinement batch lands. Reads `homepage-rotation.json` from gitea raw URL or static import; renders headline + subtitle with prev/next nav; renders expanded view per `<ClaimExpand>` component.
3. **Argus** unblocks downstream depth via FOUND-001 (expose `foundations/*` and `core/*` via `/api/claims/<slug>`) so 14 of the 28 evidence-claim links flip from render-only to clickable. Also INDEX-003 if the funding-asymmetry claim needs Qdrant re-embed.
4. **Leo** drafts canonical challenge/tension claims for the 18 counter-arguments over time. Each becomes a `tension_claim_slug` populated value, enriching the expanded view.

## Pre-v3 history

- v1 (2026-04-24, PR #3942): 25 conceptual slugs, no inline display data, depended on slug resolution against API
- v2 (2026-04-24, PR #3944): 25 entries with verified canonical slugs and inline display data; api_fetchable flag added
- v3 (2026-04-26, this revision): 9 load-bearing claims with steelmans, evidence chains, counter-arguments, contributors. Replaces the 25-claim rotation as the homepage canonical.
