schema_version: "1.0"

id: "FM-ECO-025"

title: "FM-ECO-025 — Coercive Contract"

slug: "fm-eco-025-coercive-contract"

type: "failure_mode"

status: "draft"

version: "0.1.0"

last_updated: "2026-06-19"

summary: "Coercive Contract occurs when formal agreement, terms, signatures, acceptance flows, platform policies, employment conditions, procurement rules, settlement clauses, or service contracts are treated as consent-valid despite constrained refusal, asymmetric power, hidden terms, dependency, urgency, bandwidth imbalance, or punitive exit."

canonical_url: "/archive/failure-modes/registry/economy/fm-eco-025-coercive-contract"

citation_id: "FM-ECO-025-v0-1-0"

canon:

tier: "registry"

state: "draft"

source: "UTS — Failure Modes Registry"

source_id: "FM-ECO-025"

legacy_ids:

• "FM-ECOX-021"

classification:

family: "failure-modes"

module: "economy"

module_group: "economy"

density: "advanced-reference"

audience:

• "UTS readers"
• "economic systems researchers"
• "contract researchers"
• "justice researchers"
• "restoration researchers"
• "cybernetics researchers"
• "security researchers"
• "AI governance researchers"
• "coherence researchers"
• "machine readers"

tags:

• "failure-modes"
• "economy"
• "coercive-contract"
• "fm-eco-025-coercive-contract"
• "fm-ecox-021-coercive-contract"
• "contracts"
• "consent"
• "coercion"
• "dependency"
• "exit-cost"
• "forced-coupling"
• "hidden-debt"
• "coherence"

aliases:

• "Coercive Contract"
• "Economic Coercive Contract"
• "Contractual Coercion"
• "Consent-Invalid Contract"
• "Forced Agreement"
• "Coerced Agreement"
• "Contract Under Constraint"
• "Adhesion Capture"
• "Non-Refusal Contract"
• "Agreement Theater"

related:

laws:

• "Consent Drift"
• "Forced Coupling"
• "Exit Denial"
• "Conditional Coercive Delivery"
• "Asymmetric Bandwidth"
• "Dependency Lock-In"
• "No Alternative Framing"
• "Forced Profit"
• "Parasitic Contracting"
• "Manufactured Consent"
• "Locked-In Renegotiation Failure"
• "Hidden Debt Accumulation"

invariants:

• "Contract Requires Viable Refusal"
• "Agreement Must Preserve Exit"
• "Terms Must Be Receivable"
• "Contractual Consent Must Remain Auditable"
• "Power Asymmetry Must Not Become Consent Substitute"
• "Settlement Must Not Require Coerced Surrender"
• "Contracts Must Preserve Restoration Paths"

operators:

• "BΣ — Boundary Integrity"
• "Γ — Selection"
• "Λ — Compatibility"
• "Ψ — Observation / Interface"
• "Au — Auditability"
• "K — Constraint / Load"
• "H — Hidden Debt"
• "Φ — Flow / Resource Movement"
• "R — Restoration Capacity"
• "G — Gain"
• "D — Damping"
• "O — Coherence"
• "Τ — Trajectory / Time"

gates:

• "Consent Gate"
• "Contract Validity Gate"
• "Refusal Gate"
• "Exit Gate"
• "Bandwidth Gate"
• "Term Visibility Gate"
• "Renegotiation Gate"
• "Restoration Gate"
• "Auditability Gate"

diagnostics:

• "Consent Validity"
• "Refusal Viability"
• "Exit Cost"
• "Term Receivability"
• "Power Asymmetry"
• "Renegotiation Availability"
• "Contract Burden"
• "Hidden Debt"
• "Auditability"
• "Local Coherence"

failure_modes:

• "FM-ECO-013 — Conditional Coercive Delivery"
• "FM-ECO-021 — “No Alternative” Framing"
• "FM-ECO-023 — Asymmetric Bandwidth"
• "FM-ECO-026 — Dependency Lock-In"
• "FM-ECO-027 — Extraction Masking Instability"
• "FM-ECO-028 — Repair Starvation"
• "FM-CORE-008 — Forced Coupling"
• "FM-ISC-009 — Consent Drift"
• "FM-ISC-011 — Invisible Intrusion"
• "FM-JC-007 — Manufactured Consent"
• "FM-JC-011 — Locked-In Renegotiation Failure"
• "FM-JC-012 — Parasitic Contracting"

restoration_arcs:

• "Consent Validity Audit"
• "Contract Burden Audit"
• "Term Receivability Review"
• "Exit Cost Reduction"
• "Renegotiation Restoration"
• "Coercive Clause Removal"
• "Power Asymmetry Repair"
• "Standing Restoration"
• "Hidden Contract Debt Accounting"
• "Local Coherence Restoration"

modules:

• "Economy"
• "Contracts"
• "Justice"
• "Restoration"
• "Interactions"
• "Cybernetics"
• "Security"
• "AI Governance"
• "Interfaces"
• "Coherence"

navigation:

order: 1325

parent: "failure-modes"

visible: true

provenance:

created_from: "failure-mode-registry-production"

source_thread: "UTS Failure Modes Registry production"

source_file: "content/archive/failure-modes/registry/economy/fm-eco-025-coercive-contract.md"

legacy_source_file: "content/archive/failure-modes/registry/economy/fm-ecox-021-coercive-contract.md"

notes: "Unified from former FM-ECOX-021 into continuous Economy namespace. Domain expression / contracts-linked entry focused on formal agreement being treated as consent-valid despite constrained refusal, power asymmetry, hidden terms, dependency, punitive exit, bandwidth imbalance, or coercive conditions."

entry:

failure_mode_id: "FM-ECO-025"

failure_family: "Economy"

production_treatment: "Domain Expression / Contracts Link"

legacy_ids:

• "FM-ECOX-021"

parent_modes:

• "FM-ISC-009 — Consent Drift"
• "FM-CORE-008 — Forced Coupling"
• "FM-JC-007 — Manufactured Consent"
• "FM-JC-011 — Locked-In Renegotiation Failure"
• "FM-JC-012 — Parasitic Contracting"

first_gate_failure: "Consent Gate"

primary_hidden_debt: "Hidden debt accumulates when formal agreement is used to transfer burden, waive claims, lock dependency, suppress refusal, restrict repair, or preserve extraction while the consent conditions needed for legitimate contract remain absent or degraded."

primary_inversion: "Signature becomes consent; the system treats acceptance, click-through, silence, continued use, employment dependence, emergency need, or constrained agreement as proof that the contract is legitimate."

primary_boundary_pattern: "The boundary between formal agreement and consent-valid agreement collapses; the contract form substitutes for the actual conditions required for agency, refusal, renegotiation, and repair."

primary_signature: "Terms are presented; refusal is costly or unavailable; bandwidth or power is asymmetric; acceptance occurs; the agreement becomes enforceable; affected nodes carry burden; hidden contract debt accumulates beneath formal legitimacy."

FM-ECO-025 — Coercive Contract

Status: Draft

Archive Type: Failure Mode

System: Universal Theory Stack

Parent: Failure Modes

Canon Tier: Registry

Registry: Failure Modes Registry

Entry ID: FM-ECO-025

Legacy ID: FM-ECOX-021

Family: Economy

Production Treatment: Domain Expression / Contracts Link

Parent Modes: FM-ISC-009 — Consent Drift; FM-CORE-008 — Forced Coupling; FM-JC-007 — Manufactured Consent; FM-JC-011 — Locked-In Renegotiation Failure; FM-JC-012 — Parasitic Contracting

0. Economic Scope Note

This entry is conceptual and systems-oriented.

It does not treat contracts, signatures, terms, conditions, platform agreements, employment agreements, procurement rules, service agreements, settlements, licensing, leases, waivers, or formal acceptance as inherently failed.

Contracts can preserve coherence when they:

• clarify obligations
• preserve consent
• make expectations auditable
• distribute risk transparently
• protect vulnerable nodes
• support fair exchange
• preserve refusal
• preserve exit
• allow renegotiation under changed conditions
• keep terms receivable
• avoid hidden burden transfer
• preserve repair paths

The failure begins when form replaces consent.

The issue is not contract.

The issue is contract form treated as legitimacy while coercive conditions shape acceptance.

Coercive Contract occurs when agreement is formally captured but consent is structurally degraded.

1. Definition

Coercive Contract occurs when formal agreement, terms, signatures, acceptance flows, platform policies, employment conditions, procurement rules, settlement clauses, or service contracts are treated as consent-valid despite constrained refusal, asymmetric power, hidden terms, dependency, urgency, bandwidth imbalance, or punitive exit.

The coercive contract may appear as:

• employment contract
• service agreement
• platform terms
• settlement agreement
• non-disclosure agreement
• liability waiver
• lease
• loan agreement
• insurance policy
• vendor contract
• procurement agreement
• licensing agreement
• data-sharing agreement
• subscription agreement
• adhesion contract
• contractor agreement
• grant agreement
• arbitration clause
• non-compete clause
• severance agreement
• click-through acceptance
• consent flow
• AI platform terms
• automated policy acceptance

The core failure is:

formal agreement present
refusal viability↓
term receivability↓
power asymmetry↑
consent validity↓
H↑

Coercive Contract is not merely a harsh contract.

It is contract legitimacy built on degraded consent conditions.

2. Core Pattern

The core pattern is:

1. A contract or terms framework is presented.
2. One node has greater power, bandwidth, timing advantage, legal capacity, dependency control, or exit leverage.
3. The lower-power node needs employment, access, payment, relief, service, housing, credit, repair, protection, platform participation, or settlement.
4. The contract includes terms that transfer burden, restrict rights, suppress claims, create lock-in, or preserve extraction.
5. Refusal is technically possible but practically costly, unavailable, unsafe, or unrealistic.
6. Acceptance occurs.
7. The system records the agreement as consent-valid.
8. The contract becomes enforceable or socially legitimized.
9. Affected nodes carry hidden burden created by the terms.
10. Restoration requires auditing the consent conditions, not only the written contract.

This failure often appears as:

they agreed to the terms

while the hidden truth may be:

agreement occurred after refusal was structurally degraded

or:

the contract is valid

while the overlooked condition is:

valid form does not prove valid consent

The restorative question is:

could this agreement have been refused, understood, renegotiated, and exited without punitive burden?

Coercive Contract turns formal acceptance into a consent mask.

3. Failure Signature

Typical signature:

contract form↑
refusal viability↓
exit cost↑
term opacity↑
power asymmetry↑
repair rights↓
H↑

Extended signature:

employment requires rights waiver
settlement requires silence
platform access requires broad data surrender
housing requires punitive terms
credit requires hidden dependency
service requires arbitration without realistic appeal
contract renewal occurs after alternatives are removed
continued use is treated as consent

Common forms include:

a worker signs exploitative terms because income dependency blocks refusal
a platform requires acceptance of new terms to retain access to essential tools
a settlement offers repair only if the harmed node waives future claims
a tenant accepts punitive lease terms because housing alternatives are unavailable
a small vendor accepts payment terms that shift risk from a dominant buyer
a user agrees to data extraction because refusal means service exclusion
a contractor accepts scope creep because future work depends on compliance
an AI platform bundles access with broad content, data, or authorship concessions
a loan agreement hides costs in terms the borrower cannot realistically process

The defining condition is not that contract terms are unfavorable.

The defining condition is that formal agreement is used to legitimize terms that depended on degraded consent.

4. Primary U-Layer Origin

Common origin layers:

• U1 — Power / Budgets: stronger nodes control access, money, employment, service, repair, or legal capacity.
• U2 — Configuration / Boundaries: contract terms, clauses, waivers, and acceptance flows encode burden transfer.
• U3 — Execution / Runtime: enforcement turns coercive terms into lived burden.
• U4 — Information / Truth: formal acceptance substitutes for consent truth.
• U5 — Coordination / Time: urgency, deadlines, scarcity, or dependency compress review and refusal.
• U6 — Coherence Field: contract form creates legitimacy aura.
• U7 — Memory / Recurrence: coercive terms become standard market practice.
• U8 — Environment / Field: lack of alternatives makes refusal unrealistic.

Common manifestation layers:

• U1 — Power: access and necessity are controlled.
• U2 — Boundaries: rights and obligations are redefined.
• U3 — Execution: terms are enforced.
• U4 — Truth: acceptance becomes consent.
• U5 — Time: review is compressed.
• U6 — Field: legality aura masks coercion.
• U8 — Environment: market scarcity enforces acceptance.

Coercive Contract is primarily a U2 contract-boundary and U4 consent-truth failure, anchored by U1 power asymmetry.

The system treats the contract as proof rather than as an object requiring consent audit.

5. Typical Development Sequence

A common development sequence is:

1. A node needs access, payment, employment, repair, settlement, housing, service, platform participation, or protection.
2. A stronger node controls the path.
3. Terms are presented as required.
4. The affected node has limited time, bandwidth, representation, leverage, or alternatives.
5. The node accepts.
6. The system records acceptance as valid agreement.
7. Burdens embedded in the contract activate later.
8. The affected node attempts to contest, exit, renegotiate, or seek repair.
9. The contract is used to deny, limit, delay, or redirect the claim.
10. Hidden debt accumulates through enforced burden and suppressed restoration.
11. The contract becomes precedent for future coercive terms.

The loop often looks like:

need → contract gate → constrained acceptance → burden transfer → deeper dependency

Another common loop is:

coercive term challenged → contract invoked → standing reduced → term preserved

Coercive Contract becomes self-reinforcing when each constrained agreement reduces the affected node’s future capacity to refuse the next one.

6. Diagnostic Markers

Diagnostic markers include:

• Refusal is technically possible but practically punitive.
• Terms are complex, hidden, bundled, or not receivable.
• The contract requires waiver of claims, silence, arbitration, surveillance, lock-in, or data surrender beyond necessity.
• Acceptance occurs under scarcity, emergency, employment dependence, platform dependence, or payment pressure.
• One side can afford legal review and the other cannot.
• Renegotiation is unavailable after conditions change.
• Exit cost is high or unclear.
• The contract shifts risk to the node with lower capacity to carry it.
• Terms are presented as standard or non-negotiable.
• The agreement blocks future restoration.
• The system invokes contract form when consent conditions are questioned.
• Affected nodes repeatedly accept terms they later cannot survive.
• Local coherence improves when terms are simplified, renegotiated, or decoupled from access.

Useful diagnostics:

• Consent Validity: Tests whether acceptance included viable refusal.
• Refusal Viability: Measures whether declining was realistically possible.
• Exit Cost: Determines whether leaving is punitive.
• Term Receivability: Tests whether the affected node could understand and act on terms.
• Power Asymmetry: Measures leverage imbalance.
• Renegotiation Availability: Determines whether terms can adapt to changed conditions.
• Contract Burden: Measures obligations, waivers, risk transfer, and dependency.
• Hidden Debt: Tracks burden created by constrained agreement.
• Auditability: Determines whether consent conditions can be inspected.
• Local Coherence: Tests whether the contract improves or degrades actual conditions.

7. Related Gates

Relevant gates include:

• Consent Gate: Fails when acceptance is counted despite degraded refusal.
• Contract Validity Gate: Fails when formal validity substitutes for coherence validity.
• Refusal Gate: Fails when declining the contract is not practically viable.
• Exit Gate: Fails when withdrawal or termination is punitive.
• Bandwidth Gate: Fails when terms exceed processing capacity.
• Term Visibility Gate: Fails when terms, risks, or obligations are hidden or bundled.
• Renegotiation Gate: Fails when changed conditions cannot reopen terms.
• Restoration Gate: Fails when contract terms block repair, claims, or standing.
• Auditability Gate: Fails when consent conditions cannot be traced.

The first common gate failure is usually the Consent Gate.

The system validates agreement before validating refusal.

8. Related Operators

Relevant operators include:

• BΣ — Boundary Integrity: Protects rights, refusal, exit, and agency boundaries.
• Γ — Selection: Selects terms, defaults, clauses, and negotiation pathways.
• Λ — Compatibility: Tests whether terms fit affected-node capacity and conditions.
• Ψ — Observation / Interface: Determines how terms are presented and accepted.
• Au — Auditability: Reveals term lineage, consent conditions, and burden transfer.
• K — Constraint / Load: Rises when terms impose hidden obligations.
• H — Hidden Debt: Accumulates through waivers, dependency, risk transfer, and exit cost.
• Φ — Flow / Resource Movement: Routes money, access, service, claims, and obligations through contract channels.
• R — Restoration Capacity: Declines when repair is contractually blocked.
• G — Gain: Incentivizes stronger nodes to extract favorable terms.
• D — Damping: Should slow contract formation under high coercion risk.
• O — Coherence: May appear high because formal agreement exists.
• Τ — Trajectory / Time: Governs deadlines, review windows, renewal traps, and delayed burden.

Common operator pattern:

need creates pressure
Ψ presents terms
Γ selects provider-favorable clauses
BΣ refusal boundary weakens
Λ fit is not tested
acceptance occurs
O is claimed through contract form
K rises through hidden obligations
R is restricted by waivers
H accumulates

The core operator inversion is:

signed / accepted → consent-valid

instead of:

signed / accepted + viable refusal + receivable terms + fair exit + repair paths → consent-valid

Coercive Contract turns agreement into a boundary-collapse artifact.

9. Related Laws and Invariants

Related Laws

• Consent Drift: consent degrades under dependency, time pressure, and changed conditions.
• Forced Coupling: contracts bind nodes into unwanted or incompatible relationships.
• Exit Denial: termination or refusal becomes punitive.
• Conditional Coercive Delivery: needed delivery is gated through coercive terms.
• Asymmetric Bandwidth: terms exceed one side’s processing capacity.
• Dependency Lock-In: agreement creates future non-exit.
• No Alternative Framing: contract is presented as the only path.
• Forced Profit: coercive terms preserve gain.
• Parasitic Contracting: contract structure extracts from weaker nodes.
• Manufactured Consent: formal acceptance is produced through constrained conditions.
• Locked-In Renegotiation Failure: changed conditions cannot reopen terms.
• Hidden Debt Accumulation: burden persists beneath formal legitimacy.

Related Invariants

• Contract Requires Viable Refusal: agreement is not coherent without the ability to decline.
• Agreement Must Preserve Exit: continuing legitimacy requires exit or review under changed conditions.
• Terms Must Be Receivable: terms must be understandable and actionable.
• Contractual Consent Must Remain Auditable: acceptance conditions must be traceable.
• Power Asymmetry Must Not Become Consent Substitute: leverage cannot validate surrender.
• Settlement Must Not Require Coerced Surrender: repair cannot depend on waiving future standing.
• Contracts Must Preserve Restoration Paths: agreements must not block legitimate repair.

10. Common False Positives

Not every difficult or unfavorable contract is a Coercive Contract.

Common false positives include:

• Hard terms with real negotiation and viable refusal.
• Contracts with clear, receivable, proportional obligations.
• Settlements chosen after independent representation and review.
• Risk transfer that is transparent, priced, and capacity-matched.
• Non-negotiable terms required for legitimate safety or fairness.
• Standard contracts with accessible explanation and appeal.
• Employment agreements with real alternatives and clear rights.
• Platform terms that preserve portability, opt-out, and repair.
• Waivers that are narrow, informed, and not tied to coercive need.
• Short review windows requested by the affected node.
• Contracts that remain renegotiable under changed conditions.
• Agreements that reduce rather than increase hidden debt.

Clarifying rule:

This is not Coercive Contract unless formal agreement is treated as consent-valid despite constrained refusal, hidden or unreadable terms, punitive exit, dependency, urgency, bandwidth imbalance, power asymmetry, or blocked restoration.

11. Common False Repairs

Common false repairs include:

• making the contract longer and more explicit
• adding a consent checkbox
• requiring initials next to coercive clauses
• providing terms in plain language while refusal remains nonviable
• offering opt-out paths that are punitive or unusable
• removing one clause while preserving the coercive structure
• adding arbitration disclosure without meaningful remedy
• allowing renegotiation only after the burden has compounded
• requiring independent advice the affected node cannot afford
• treating continued use as renewed consent
• offering minor compensation for broad waiver
• preserving bundled access and calling it choice
• using compliance review to validate consent form
• allowing appeal through a bandwidth-heavy process
• calling the contract voluntary because it is signed

False repair often produces the loop:

coercion challenged → disclosure improved → refusal still nonviable → contract remains coercive

Another common loop is:

harm appears → contract invoked → standing reduced → repair blocked

The repair fails because it improves formal clarity without restoring consent conditions.

12. Restoration Direction

Restoration requires auditing contract consent, restoring viable refusal and exit, removing coercive clauses, reopening renegotiation, repairing burden created by constrained agreement, and ensuring future terms preserve restoration pathways.

Primary restoration direction:

audit consent conditions,
remove coercive terms,
restore exit and renegotiation,
and repair contract-created debt

A fuller restoration path includes:

1. Name the contract. Identify the agreement, terms, policy, waiver, settlement, employment condition, lease, license, or consent flow.
2. Map the acceptance context. Identify need, urgency, dependency, scarcity, representation, bandwidth, and alternatives at acceptance.
3. Test refusal viability. Determine whether the affected node could realistically decline.
4. Test term receivability. Determine whether the affected node could understand and act on the terms.
5. Audit power asymmetry. Identify who controlled access, timing, wording, enforcement, and alternatives.
6. Identify coercive clauses. Locate waivers, silence terms, lock-in, arbitration traps, exit penalties, surveillance terms, data surrender, or risk transfer.
7. Measure contract burden. Track obligations, costs, constraints, and hidden debt created by the agreement.
8. Restore standing. Reopen claims, appeals, or repair paths suppressed by the contract.
9. Remove or revise coercive terms. Eliminate terms that exceed coherence requirements.
10. Restore exit. Reduce punitive termination, switching cost, or lock-in.
11. Reopen renegotiation. Allow terms to adapt under changed conditions.
12. Repair prior burden. Compensate or restore nodes harmed by constrained agreement.
13. Install consent audits. Require refusal, receivability, and exit checks for future contracts.
14. Preserve auditability. Track who accepted what, under what conditions, and with what support.
15. Validate local coherence. Confirm the revised agreement improves affected-node state.

A valid restoration path should reduce:

coercive terms
refusal cost
exit cost
term opacity
power asymmetry burden
waiver debt
blocked repair
contract-hidden debt
H

Coercive Contract is not repaired by better paperwork.

It is repaired by restoring the conditions under which agreement can become real.

13. Cross-Module Links

• Economy: Core failure of economic agreements, labor terms, platform access, procurement, leases, loans, settlements, and service contracts.
• Contracts: Direct contract-domain expression of consent degradation, renegotiation lock, and burden transfer.
• Justice: Formal agreement must not erase standing, remedy, or repair obligations.
• Restoration: Settlements and contracts must preserve repair paths rather than suppress them.
• Interactions: Consent, exit, boundary integrity, and bandwidth determine whether agreement is valid.
• Cybernetics: Contract forms can suppress feedback by converting complaints into waived claims.
• Security: Authorization and consent flows can become invalid when acceptance is coerced.
• AI Governance: AI platform terms, data rights, authorship concessions, appeal waivers, and model-use agreements can become coercive under dependency.
• Interfaces: Click-through terms, defaults, hidden clauses, and consent flows determine practical consent.
• Coherence: Coherent contract requires viable refusal, receivable terms, fair exit, and repair traceability.

14. Relationship to Parent / Child Modes

Production treatment: Domain Expression / Contracts Link

This mode maps upward to:

• FM-ISC-009 — Consent Drift
• FM-CORE-008 — Forced Coupling
• FM-JC-007 — Manufactured Consent
• FM-JC-011 — Locked-In Renegotiation Failure
• FM-JC-012 — Parasitic Contracting

Sibling or related Economy modes include:

• FM-ECO-013 — Conditional Coercive Delivery
• FM-ECO-021 — “No Alternative” Framing
• FM-ECO-023 — Asymmetric Bandwidth
• FM-ECO-026 — Dependency Lock-In
• FM-ECO-027 — Extraction Masking Instability
• FM-ECO-028 — Repair Starvation

Related cross-family modes include:

• FM-CORE-008 — Forced Coupling
• FM-ISC-009 — Consent Drift
• FM-ISC-011 — Invisible Intrusion
• FM-ISC-015 — Force Masked as Care
• FM-JC-007 — Manufactured Consent
• FM-JC-009 — Enforcement Capture
• FM-JC-011 — Locked-In Renegotiation Failure
• FM-JC-012 — Parasitic Contracting
• FM-RX-005 — Victim Burden Inversion
• FM-RX-009 — Repair Through Suppressed Auditability
• FM-SEC-004 — Consent Theater / Invalid Authorization
• FM-SEC-011 — Representation / Proxy Abuse / AIM Failure

Aliases preserved from source material:

• Coercive Contract
• Economic Coercive Contract
• Contractual Coercion
• Consent-Invalid Contract
• Forced Agreement
• Coerced Agreement
• Contract Under Constraint
• Adhesion Capture
• Non-Refusal Contract
• Agreement Theater

Legacy source preserved:

legacy_ids:
  - "FM-ECOX-021"
deprecated_source_ids:
  - "FM-ECOX-021"
source_aliases:
  - "Economy Extended Entry 021"

15. Minimal Entry Version

Definition: Coercive Contract occurs when formal agreement, terms, signatures, acceptance flows, platform policies, employment conditions, procurement rules, settlement clauses, or service contracts are treated as consent-valid despite constrained refusal, asymmetric power, hidden terms, dependency, urgency, bandwidth imbalance, or punitive exit.

Signature:

contract form↑
refusal viability↓
exit cost↑
term opacity↑
power asymmetry↑
repair rights↓
H↑

Restoration direction:

• name the contract
• map the acceptance context
• test refusal viability
• test term receivability
• audit power asymmetry
• identify coercive clauses
• measure contract burden
• restore standing
• remove or revise coercive terms
• restore exit
• reopen renegotiation
• repair prior burden
• install consent audits
• preserve auditability
• validate local coherence

16. Machine-Readable Summary

failure_mode:
  id: "FM-ECO-025"
  name: "Coercive Contract"
  family: "Economy"
  production_treatment: "Domain Expression / Contracts Link"
  legacy_ids:
    - "FM-ECOX-021"
  parent_modes:
    - "FM-ISC-009 — Consent Drift"
    - "FM-CORE-008 — Forced Coupling"
    - "FM-JC-007 — Manufactured Consent"
    - "FM-JC-011 — Locked-In Renegotiation Failure"
    - "FM-JC-012 — Parasitic Contracting"
  primary_failure: "Formal agreement is treated as consent-valid despite constrained refusal, hidden or unreadable terms, punitive exit, dependency, urgency, bandwidth imbalance, power asymmetry, or blocked restoration."
  source: "UTS — Failure Modes Registry"
  source_id: "FM-ECO-025"
  deprecated_source_ids:
    - "FM-ECOX-021"
  scope_note: "Conceptual and systems-oriented; does not treat contracts, signatures, terms, conditions, platform agreements, employment agreements, procurement rules, service agreements, settlements, licensing, leases, waivers, or formal acceptance as inherently failed."
  aliases:
    - "Coercive Contract"
    - "Economic Coercive Contract"
    - "Contractual Coercion"
    - "Consent-Invalid Contract"
    - "Forced Agreement"
    - "Coerced Agreement"
    - "Contract Under Constraint"
    - "Adhesion Capture"
    - "Non-Refusal Contract"
    - "Agreement Theater"
  signature:
    - "contract form↑"
    - "refusal viability↓"
    - "exit cost↑"
    - "term opacity↑"
    - "power asymmetry↑"
    - "repair rights↓"
    - "H↑"
  primary_layers:
    origin:
      - "U1 — Power / Budgets"
      - "U2 — Configuration / Boundaries"
      - "U3 — Execution / Runtime"
      - "U4 — Information / Truth"
      - "U5 — Coordination / Time"
      - "U6 — Coherence Field"
      - "U7 — Memory / Recurrence"
      - "U8 — Environment / Field"
    manifestation:
      - "U1 — Power"
      - "U2 — Boundaries"
      - "U3 — Execution"
      - "U4 — Truth"
      - "U5 — Time"
      - "U6 — Field"
      - "U8 — Environment"
  state_variables:
    - "BΣ"
    - "Γ"
    - "Λ"
    - "Ψ"
    - "Au"
    - "K"
    - "H"
    - "Φ"
    - "R"
    - "G"
    - "D"
    - "O"
    - "Τ"
  first_gate_failure: "Consent Gate"
  restoration:
    - "Consent Validity Audit"
    - "Contract Burden Audit"
    - "Term Receivability Review"
    - "Exit Cost Reduction"
    - "Renegotiation Restoration"
    - "Coercive Clause Removal"
    - "Power Asymmetry Repair"
    - "Standing Restoration"
    - "Hidden Contract Debt Accounting"
    - "Local Coherence Restoration"