The Asymmetric Social Contract (ASC) — LERO/AERO for Network Capital
This is not “networking advice.” It’s a defensive architecture: protect your time and nervous system (LERO), while preserving rare upside routes (AERO). The contract is asymmetric by design: minimal maintenance, maximal compounding.
Ⅰ. LERO — Eliminate Social Liabilities (Negative Optionality) 🜁
“Negative optionality” is any relationship that increases your downside while capping your upside: crisis addiction, guilt-based access, financial leakage, or identity erosion. The ASC treats this as risk management, not morality.
1.1 The Network Stress Test (Ω-S.1) ⚖️
Run a semi-annual audit of active relationships. Not “everyone you know” — only those with real calendar access. The goal is to spot silent ruin vectors early.
Score each relationship on: ROItime (1–10), EVI Emotional Volatility Index (1–10), and F-RE Financial Risk Exposure (Low/Med/High). Then classify: AERO Asset · Neutral · LERO Violation.
Rare knowledge: three failure modes nobody names 🝮
- Triangulation leakage: the relationship acts as a router for gossip, pressure, or third-party agendas. Your attention becomes their distribution channel.
- Co-regulation hijack: they use your nervous system as their stabilizer. You become the “emotional battery,” then pay the recovery cost alone.
- Status consumption: proximity is used to borrow your discipline/aura without respecting your boundaries. This is “identity tax” disguised as friendship.
1.2 EVI threshold (Ω-S.1a) 🜄
EVI is not “how intense they are.” It’s how often they demand urgency, drama, or rescue as the price of access. High-EVI relationships create chronic alertness — the opposite of deep work and health sovereignty.
If EVI ≥ 4 and ROItime ≤ 5, classify as LERO Violation. Response is distance + boundaries, not punishment: reduce availability, remove emergency channels, and stop “instant replies” that train people to escalate.
1.3 Contract Termination Protocol (CTP) 🝫
When you end a contract, the goal is not to win the argument — it’s to stop the leak. Keep it short. Don’t litigate history. Don’t diagnose them. Don’t perform a speech.
- One sentence: “I’m not available for this dynamic.”
- One boundary: what channel/times are closed.
- One exit: no debate window.
Ethics note: ASC forbids deception. You don’t “use people.” You also don’t donate your life to chaos. Both can be true.
Ⅱ. AERO — Amplify Asymmetric Network Optionality 🝤
Optionality is not popularity. It’s access to rare paths: skill corridors, distribution edges, high-integrity collaborators, and silent institutional doors.
2.1 The Asymmetric Optionality Profile (AOP) 🜂
An AOP connection has non-linear upside and low maintenance. Think: one high-integrity person whose knowledge or position changes your map — without needing daily contact.
AOP is present if the relationship grants (a) rare information, (b) rare distribution, (c) rare execution capacity, or (d) rare credibility transfer — while requiring minimal time and zero drama.
Rare knowledge: why “weak ties” can be stronger 🝗
Strong ties stabilize you. Weak ties change your opportunity set. They bridge communities, industries, and audiences. The ASC therefore treats “light but respectful contact” as a strategic layer: you keep the bridge intact without constant traffic.
2.2 High-Signal Interrogation (HSI) Protocol 🜏
With AOP contacts, don’t talk in circles. Ask for constraints, maps, and failure patterns. Your output is an artifact, not vibes.
- Map question: “What are the three bottlenecks in this domain that outsiders never see?”
- Failure question: “What ruins people here—quietly?”
- Criteria question: “If you had to test an operator in 5 minutes, what would you look for?”
- Signal question: “What proof-of-work matters in this culture?”
Ⅲ. AI Prompt — Social Contract Integrity Check (Prompt 10) 🝣
This prompt turns a relationship into a structured decision: keep, reduce, or exit — without drama. It also forces an ethics constraint: no manipulation, no covert extraction.
{
"Role": "You are my M2M Social Capital Analyst. Objective, non-sentimental, ethics-first. No mind games. No diagnosing people. No shaming language.",
"Inputs (ask me first)": [
"1) Relationship label (e.g., Friend / Family / Collaborator / Audience / Institution):",
"2) Access level (How much calendar access do they have?):",
"3) Recent pattern (last 90 days): list 3 interactions and outcomes:",
"4) Any money entanglement? (Yes/No + details):",
"5) Any health/energy impact? (Sleep, stress, seizures, recovery time):",
"6) What do I want the relationship to be (if ideal)?"
],
"Scoring Metrics": {
"ROI_time (1-10, Target >= 7)": "Estimate based on outcomes per hour invested.",
"EVI (1-10, Target <= 3)": "Crisis frequency, urgency, guilt pressure, mood-dependence.",
"F-RE (Low/Med/High)": "Borrowing requests, manipulation risk, cost exposure.",
"AOP (0 or 1)": "Do they create non-linear upside? (rare signal, distribution, skill corridor, credibility)."
},
"Procedure": [
"1) Classify: AERO Asset / Neutral / LERO Violation.",
"2) If LERO Violation: propose a boundary plan with 3 levels (Soft / Firm / Exit). Keep it respectful and brief.",
"3) If AERO Asset: propose an HSI approach (3 high-signal questions + one artifact to produce after the call).",
"4) If Neutral: propose a low-maintenance cadence that protects the 40% Optionality Reserve.",
"5) Evidence grade: label each conclusion High/Moderate/Low certainty based on the inputs (state why).",
"6) Ethics lock: confirm the plan involves no deceit, coercion, or exploitation."
],
"Output (exact format)": {
"Classification": "",
"Scores": { "ROI_time": "", "EVI": "", "F-RE": "", "AOP": "" },
"Action Plan (next 7 days)": ["1.", "2.", "3."],
"Boundary Script (<= 2 sentences)": "",
"Evidence Grade": "",
"Ethics Note": "",
"Link-Forward": "Next, run Prompt 8 (IDG Quarantine) if any narrative pressure spikes after boundary enforcement."
}
}
