I’m looking for a technically serious reviewer for a proof package I’ve been developing around what may be a boundary problem in standard utility/scalar aggregation.
The question is this:
Can scalar utility be treated not as the whole decision architecture, but as a restricted subroutine that works only when specific structural conditions are met?
The proof package comes from the Productive Value–Productive Power (PV-PP) framework. The basic claim is not that scalar utility is useless. It is not that economics is wrong. The claim is narrower:
Scalar comparison appears to be locally recoverable inside PV-PP under certified structural conditions, but scalar comparison does not appear to globally contain the full PV-PP decision architecture in classes involving staged selection, governing-domain conflict, changing state, viability thresholds, recovery constraints, and execution authority.
In plain language: one score may be valid when the decision problem has the right structure. But in other cases, the decision is not just “which option has the highest score?” It is “which options are viable under the domains that currently govern the decision, and which stages of the decision process are being collapsed if we force everything into one ranking?”
If this holds, the implication is not anti-utility. It is more like an expansion of the textbook treatment of utility: scalar utility would remain important, but as a special case inside a broader architecture that can identify when scalar compression is valid, merely diagnostic, or structurally misleading.
The current proof package has been reduced to a finite review set. The live theorem packet is V3.25; V3.26 is only a status-and-boundary layer. The package has already gone through adversarial AI-assisted file-control and claim-scope review, but that is not a substitute for a human technical reviewer.
I am looking for someone with strength in one or more of:
mathematical economics
decision theory
utility theory
optimization
formal methods / proof verification
multi-criteria decision theory
The review I need is adversarial. I do not need encouragement. I need someone to look for theorem defects, hidden assumptions, overclaims, condition drift, and places where a proof-control note may be doing more work than the theorem actually supports.
If you know someone who would be willing to review this kind of proof package, or if you think there is a better venue for finding such a reviewer, please contact:
amundsenlance@gmail.com
The review question is simple:
Is scalar utility best understood as the whole decision model, or as a powerful but structurally limited subroutine inside a broader decision architecture?
