A pathway becomes incoherent when it requires a damaged node to supply the very capacity that the damage reduced. Restoration, justice, recovery, reporting, participation, reconciliation, work, repair, or reintegration cannot coherently demand bandwidth, clarity, energy, trust, stability, memory, speech, proof, or endurance from a node whose capacity has already been depleted.

1. Formal Definition

The Capacity Before Demand Law states that a system fails when it places demands on a node, pathway, body, institution, user, victim, team, or field that exceed the capacity remaining after harm, compression, burden, depletion, or boundary damage.

This law governs restoration pathways, victim-resolution systems, biological recovery, justice processes, institutional repair, AI support systems, security incident response, economic contracts, and any pathway requiring participation from damaged or overloaded nodes.

A demand may be formally reasonable and still mechanically incoherent if the required capacity is unavailable.

Examples of demanded capacities include:

attention;
energy;
memory;
documentation;
testimony;
clarity;
trust;
emotional composure;
technical literacy;
physical endurance;
bureaucratic endurance;
legal navigation;
appeal persistence;
self-advocacy;
feedback precision;
tolerance;
integration;
participation;
forgiveness;
reintegration;
recovery performance.

When demand exceeds damaged capacity, the pathway does not merely become difficult. It can become a burden inverter: the node harmed by the failure is required to supply the system’s missing restoration capacity.

2. Canonical Form

Core form:

textScroll

demand > damaged node capacity ⇒ pathway failure / burden inversion

Expanded form:

textScroll

Demand↑ while K / σ / R_eff / BΣ / 𝓓 impaired ⇒ H↑ + recurrence↑ + O↓

Restoration-valid form:

textScroll

capacity restored or demand reduced ⇒ pathway becomes admissible

Capacity-gated pathway form:

textScroll

Pathway_admissible ⇒ Demand ≤ available capacity + support

Related variables:

textScroll

O, H, ε, ι, Au, R, R_eff, BΣ, K, σ, µᵢ, Φ, Λ, ⊗, Γ, Π, ℛ, Θ, Σ, Ψ, Τ, FI, Demand, Capacity, Support

Where:

TableScroll

Variable	Meaning in this law
`Demand`	Required effort, burden, participation, proof, endurance, energy, attention, or performance
`Capacity`	Available ability to meet the demand after harm, compression, or depletion
`Support`	Added scaffolding, repair, advocacy, logistics, energy, time, simplification, or accommodation
`K / σ`	Slack / sovereignty; determines whether participation is possible without extraction
`R / R_eff`	Restoration capacity available to rebuild capacity or reduce burden
`BΣ`	Boundary integrity; degraded boundaries reduce safe participation capacity
`𝓓`	Ring-down damping; poor damping reduces tolerance for further demand
`H`	Hidden debt created when demand exceeds damaged capacity
`O`	Coherence; declines when pathways rely on unavailable capacities
`ι / Ξ`	Inversion rises when harmed nodes are blamed for failing impossible pathways
`Au`	Auditability; must detect whether pathway burden exceeds capacity
`FI`	Feedback integrity; required to hear capacity limits without misclassifying them
`µᵢ`	Meaning / agent integrity harmed when incapacity is framed as noncompliance
`Φ`	Visible pathway completion may improve by excluding or exhausting damaged nodes
`Γ`	Classifies whether failure is node refusal, incapacity, pathway burden, or system design failure
`Π`	Controls, requirements, deadlines, procedures, or enforcement can increase demand
`ℛ`	Restoration action should rebuild capacity or reduce demand
`Θ`	Humility prevents assuming capacity exists because the pathway requires it
`Σ`	Scope of demand, accommodation, repair, participation, and support
`Ψ`	Field and affected-node feedback reveals whether demand is coherent
`Τ`	Time validation reveals whether the pathway reduces debt or creates recurrence
`Λ`	Compatibility determines whether the demand fits the node’s current capacity state
`⊗`	Coupling or participation demand may need reduction before capacity returns

3. Core Mechanism

The law unfolds when a system treats procedural demand as if it creates capacity.

Incoherent demand pathway

textScroll

harm / compression reduces capacity
→ pathway requires high capacity
→ damaged node cannot meet demand
→ system misclassifies failure as refusal / weakness / noncompliance
→ burden increases
→ H↑ and recurrence↑
→ pathway fails

Capacity-gated restoration pathway

textScroll

harm / compression reduces capacity
→ remaining capacity is assessed
→ demand is reduced or support is added
→ restoration capacity rebuilds capacity
→ pathway proceeds within capacity
→ H↓ and O stabilizes

The core mechanism is:

textScroll

a pathway cannot depend on capacities that its own failure conditions have damaged

Detailed mechanism:

A node is harmed, compressed, depleted, overloaded, or boundary-compromised.

Capacity falls across energy, attention, memory, agency, trust, tolerance, bandwidth, communication, mobility, regulation, or endurance.

The system presents a pathway requiring capacity.

The node must report, prove, explain, comply, recover, appeal, participate, forgive, perform, navigate bureaucracy, or reengage.

The pathway demand exceeds available capacity.

Even if the pathway is formally available, it is mechanically inaccessible.

Failure is misclassified.

The system may interpret inability as refusal, instability, low credibility, lack of motivation, bad faith, weakness, noncompliance, or insufficient maturity.

Burden inversion forms.

The damaged node now carries the burden of proving, navigating, repairing, or legitimizing the system’s response.

Hidden debt increases.

The pathway fails, harm persists, recurrence continues, and the system’s legitimacy declines.

4. When This Law Applies

This law applies whenever a system requires participation from a node whose capacity has been damaged by the condition being addressed.

It is especially important when:

harmed nodes must provide extensive documentation;
victims must maintain high coherence to access justice;
patients must navigate complex recovery while depleted;
users must appeal AI errors through opaque systems;
workers must report harm through burdensome processes;
citizens must prove harm to systems that damaged their agency;
security teams must remediate incidents while overloaded;
biological systems are asked to perform before recovery;
institutions demand feedback from exhausted participants;
reconciliation requires emotional labor from harmed nodes;
contracts require refusal capacity that survival pressure removed;
governance pathways require trust after legitimacy damage;
repair processes require time, money, memory, clarity, or endurance the harm depleted.

The law applies strongly when:

textScroll

pathway demand > damaged node capacity

or when:

textScroll

the damaged node must supply the restoration capacity the system lacks

Typical domains:

TableScroll

Domain	Capacity Before Demand Expression
AI systems	Users harmed by AI errors should not need high technical literacy, persistence, or appeal endurance to receive repair.
Security	Incident response fails when teams are expected to remediate, document, communicate, and learn beyond capacity.
Institutions	Reporting and repair pathways fail when harmed participants must carry excessive proof, navigation, or emotional labor.
Medicine / biology	Recovery fails when performance, intervention, or lifestyle demands exceed energy, tolerance, and damping.
Economy	Contracts are invalid when refusal, exit, or negotiation demand exceeds survival capacity.
Governance	Justice pathways fail when they require high stability, documentation, and endurance from damaged populations.
Culture	Reconciliation fails when harmed nodes must supply harmony, explanation, or forgiveness beyond capacity.
Restoration	Repair pathways must restore capacity or reduce demand before requiring participation.

5. When This Law Does Not Apply

This law should not be used to remove all responsibility, participation, or demand.

Some demands are coherent when they are proportional, supported, voluntary, staged, and capacity-matched. A damaged node may still choose participation. A system may need information, testimony, feedback, effort, or cooperation to restore coherence.

The law does not say “never ask.”

It says demand must be matched to available capacity and supported when capacity has been damaged.

False-positive cases:

TableScroll

Case	Why it is not a violation
A pathway asks for limited input with strong support and low burden	Demand is capacity-matched
Participation is voluntary, reversible, and paced	Demand does not become extraction
A harmed node receives advocacy, documentation help, and recovery time	Support increases effective capacity
A biological recovery plan starts below tolerance and scales gradually	Demand follows capacity
An AI appeal path is simple, transparent, and assisted	Repair does not require excessive user burden

Important distinction:

Demand can be coherent when it is capacity-matched. Demand becomes incoherent when it assumes capacity that harm has already depleted.

6. Diagnostic Signature

Canonical diagnostic:

textScroll

demand > damaged node capacity ⇒ pathway failure / burden inversion

Warning signature:

textScroll

Capacity↓
Demand↑
Support insufficient
BΣ damaged
K / σ low
𝓓 poor
H↑
⇒ burden inversion

Common indicators:

TableScroll

Diagnostic	Expected movement	Interpretation
`Demand`	excessive	Required burden exceeds capacity
`Capacity`	reduced	Harm or compression lowered ability to participate
`Support`	insufficient	Scaffolding does not close the gap
`K / σ`	↓	Slack and sovereignty are too low for the pathway
`BΣ`	damaged / unstable	Boundary compromise reduces safe engagement
`R_eff`	insufficient	Restoration capacity cannot rebuild capacity or reduce demand
`𝓓`	↓	Poor damping makes additional demand destabilizing
`H`	↑	Hidden debt rises when pathway burden exceeds capacity
`recurrence`	↑	Failure repeats because pathway is inaccessible
`O`	↓	Coherence declines as demand creates overload
`ι / Ξ`	↑	Inversion rises when incapacity is blamed on the damaged node
`Au`	selective / ↓	Burden may hide who the pathway excludes
`FI`	degraded	Capacity-limit feedback is misread or suppressed
`µᵢ`	↓	Meaning integrity degrades when inability is misclassified
`Φ`	misleading	Completion metrics may improve by filtering out overloaded nodes

Additional diagnostics:

TableScroll

Diagnostic	Use
Capacity-Demand Ratio	Compares pathway burden with actual available capacity
Harmed-Node Capacity	Measures remaining energy, attention, memory, trust, or endurance
Burden Inversion	Detects when the harmed node carries repair burden
Slack	Tests whether participation is possible without extraction
Bandwidth	Measures signal-processing capacity under demand
Restoration Capacity	Tests whether the system can support repair
Victim Pathway Capacity	Specific justice / reporting expression
Ring-Down	Tests whether added demand worsens recovery
Coherence Trajectory	Shows whether the pathway improves or degrades `O`
Temporal Proof	Reveals whether capacity-matched design holds over time

7. Failure Pattern

If ignored, this law produces pathway failure and burden inversion.

General failure pathway:

textScroll

harm reduces capacity
→ system demands high-capacity participation
→ damaged node cannot comply
→ system misclassifies incapacity
→ burden shifts to damaged node
→ H↑
→ recurrence persists
→ legitimacy declines

Common failure modes:

Capacity-Demand Mismatch — required participation exceeds available capacity.
Burden Inversion — harmed nodes carry the burden of repair.
Victim Pathway Failure — justice or reporting systems require capacities harm destroyed.
Repair-Induced Overload — repair process adds destabilizing burden.
Feedback Without Slack — feedback demand becomes extraction.
Forced Participation — participation is required despite capacity damage.
Forced Reintegration — damaged nodes are pushed into coupling before capacity returns.
False Recovery — performance demand is treated as proof of restored capacity.
Reinjury Loop — the pathway recreates harm through overload.
Pseudo-Restoration — pathway exists formally but fails mechanically.
Hidden Debt Persistence — unresolved harm remains because pathway is inaccessible.
Chronic Basin Persistence — degraded state persists due to impossible demand.
Delayed Collapse — failure appears after nodes exhaust themselves trying to comply.

Compact failure signature:

textScroll

demand > capacity + support ⇒ burden inversion + pathway failure

8. Restoration Implications

Restoration requires reducing demand or rebuilding capacity before requiring participation.

The first restoration question is not:

textScroll

Why did the node fail to comply?

The first restoration question is:

textScroll

What capacity did the pathway require, and did the harmed node still have it?

Restoration priorities:

Identify the demand.
Identify the capacity required to meet it.
Assess capacity after harm, compression, or burden.
Add support or reduce demand.
Restore slack and sovereignty.
Repair boundary damage.
Simplify pathways.
Shift repair burden away from damaged nodes where possible.
Make participation voluntary, staged, and reversible where possible.
Time-validate that the pathway reduces debt rather than adding it.

Relevant restoration arcs:

TableScroll

Restoration Arc	Why it applies
Capacity Restoration	Rebuilds the capacities the pathway requires
Slack Regeneration	Restores buffer for participation and recovery
Load Shedding	Reduces demand to capacity-matched levels
Demand Reduction	Makes the pathway mechanically accessible
Boundary Reconstitution	Restores safe participation conditions
Controlled Decoupling	Reduces coupling until capacity returns
Victim Pathway Redesign	Redesigns justice / reporting pathways around damaged capacity
Restoration Capacity Rebuild	Shifts repair burden to the system rather than the harmed node
Hidden Debt Reduction	Prevents inaccessible pathways from storing debt
Temporal Validation	Confirms the redesigned pathway holds over time
Recurrence Reduction	Tests whether burden inversion has stopped

Minimal restoration sequence:

textScroll

measure demand
→ measure damaged capacity
→ reduce demand / add support
→ restore slack and BΣ
→ route repair burden to system capacity
→ validate H↓ + recurrence↓ + O stable/↑ over Τ

Temporal validation requirement:

textScroll

Demand ≤ Capacity + Support
K / σ stable or rising
BΣ stable or rising
R_eff sufficient
H↓
recurrence↓
𝓓↑
Au intact
FI intact
harmed-node burden↓
O stable or rising

9. Design Rule

Do not demand from a damaged node the capacity that damage has already reduced.

Operational design requirements:

Identify the capacities required by every repair pathway.
Measure remaining capacity after harm.
Add support before demanding participation.
Reduce demand when capacity is low.
Simplify reporting, appeal, repair, and recovery pathways.
Provide advocacy or scaffolding where needed.
Shift repair burden to the system when the system created the harm.
Protect boundaries before participation.
Preserve slack and sovereignty.
Treat inability as a capacity signal, not automatic refusal.
Validate pathway access through affected-node feedback.
Track whether completion metrics hide exclusion.

Avoid:

requiring high coherence from damaged nodes;
requiring extensive documentation from depleted nodes;
requiring emotional labor for repair access;
requiring technical literacy after system error;
requiring legal navigation after institutional harm;
requiring performance before recovery;
requiring forgiveness before repair;
requiring reintegration before capacity returns;
treating nonparticipation as proof of bad faith;
using pathway complexity to filter claims;
placing system repair burden on harmed nodes;
measuring only successful pathway completions.

10. Cross-Scale Expressions

TableScroll

Scale / Layer	Expression of the Law
U0 — Substrate	Physical or biological damage reduces capacity for intervention, performance, and exposure.
U1 — Energy / capacity	Primary layer of the law: demand must not exceed available energy, slack, and restoration capacity.
U2 — Boundary / interface	Damaged boundaries reduce safe participation and increase burden.
U3 — Process / execution	Complex pathways fail when execution burden exceeds node capacity.
U4 — Classification / claim	Systems misclassify incapacity as refusal, noncompliance, or lack of credibility.
U5 — Time / delay	Long timelines, delays, and deadlines can exceed endurance capacity.
U6 — Field effect	Affected-node outcomes reveal whether pathway burden is coherent.
U7 — Recurrence / memory	Repeated impossible demands encode recurrence and chronic burden.
U8 — Environment / forcing	Environmental pressure can keep capacity below demand unless buffered.

11. Examples

Example A — Victim Reporting Pathway

Scenario:

A harmed person must provide extensive documentation, precise timelines, emotional composure, repeated testimony, procedural navigation, and persistence to access repair.

Law expression:

textScroll

pathway demand > harmed-node capacity ⇒ victim pathway failure

Interpretation:

The pathway may exist formally, but if it requires capacities the harm damaged, it becomes mechanically inaccessible and produces burden inversion.

Example B — AI Appeal Burden

Scenario:

A user harmed by an AI decision must understand opaque policy, gather evidence, write a technical appeal, repeat the process after denial, and wait through long delays.

Law expression:

textScroll

appeal demand > user capacity + support ⇒ AI repair pathway failure

Interpretation:

The appeal system shifts the repair burden onto the user. A coherent system would reduce demand, provide traceability, assist appeal, and repair proactively where possible.

Example C — Biological Recovery Demand

Scenario:

A depleted biological system is expected to exercise, diet strictly, manage complex routines, work normally, self-monitor precisely, and recover quickly while energy, tolerance, and damping remain low.

Law expression:

textScroll

recovery demand > biological capacity ⇒ false recovery / recurrence↑

Interpretation:

The recovery pathway becomes destabilizing when it requires more capacity than the system has available.

Example D — Security Team Overload

Scenario:

A small security team is expected to triage incidents, communicate to leadership, patch systems, perform forensics, document lessons, handle audits, and maintain normal operations simultaneously.

Law expression:

textScroll

incident response demand > team R_eff ⇒ repair-induced overload

Interpretation:

The team’s failure to complete every function is not simply execution failure. The pathway demand exceeds available restoration capacity.

Example E — Economic Contract Refusal

Scenario:

A worker, tenant, patient, customer, or contractor formally agrees to terms because refusing would threaten survival, housing, care, income, or access.

Law expression:

textScroll

refusal demand > survival capacity ⇒ consent boundary failure

Interpretation:

Formal agreement does not prove coherent consent when the state-space makes refusal mechanically unavailable.

Example F — Institutional Feedback Demand

Scenario:

An institution asks exhausted or harmed participants to join committees, give feedback, educate leadership, explain harm, and co-design repair without compensating or reducing their existing burden.

Law expression:

textScroll

feedback demand > harmed-node slack ⇒ feedback becomes extraction

Interpretation:

Feedback can be restorative only when the system provides capacity, protection, compensation, and boundaries.

12. Relationship to Nearby Laws

TableScroll

Related Law	Relationship
LAW-006 — Time Validation Law	Capacity-matched pathways must be validated over time
LAW-007 — Ring-Down Truth Law	Excess demand worsens damping
LAW-008 — Recurrence Validation Law	Impossible demand creates recurrence
LAW-010 — Hidden Debt Accumulation Law	Burden inversion stores hidden debt
LAW-011 — Hidden Debt Return Law	Unaddressed burden returns later
LAW-013 — Auditability-Debt Law	Capacity mismatch must be auditable
LAW-020 — Bandwidth Threshold Law	Demand often exceeds bandwidth capacity
LAW-022 — Integration Capacity Law	Participation requires integration capacity
LAW-023 — Restoration Capacity Load Law	Repair load must match capacity
LAW-025 — Compression Depth Collapse Law	Compression reduces capacities demanded by pathways
LAW-030 — Slack Sovereignty Law	Slack is required for meaningful participation
LAW-041 — Boundary Membrane Law	Damaged boundaries reduce safe demand capacity
LAW-045 — Force Debt Law	Demand beyond capacity becomes coercive force
LAW-047 — Controlled Decoupling Law	Decoupling may reduce demand while capacity rebuilds
LAW-049 — Feedback Without Slack Becomes Extraction Law	LAW-075 generalizes feedback burden into all pathway demand
LAW-050 — Control-Restoration Separation Law	Compliance demands are not restoration
LAW-052 — Stability Proof Law	Capacity-matched repair should survive perturbation
LAW-061 — Restoration Sequencing Law	Capacity restoration may need to precede other repair steps
LAW-062 — Restoration Is Not the Inverse of Failure Law	Repair cannot simply demand return to prior function
LAW-063 — Origin-Layer Repair Law	Capacity damage must be repaired at its origin layer
LAW-064 — Restoration Debt Reduction Law	Demand beyond capacity increases debt instead of reducing it
LAW-065 — Pseudo-Restoration Law	Formal pathways can appear restorative while excluding damaged nodes
LAW-066 — Restoration Capacity Sufficiency Law	LAW-075 is the node/pathway demand version of the load-capacity threshold
LAW-067 — Temporal Proof Law	Pathway redesign must hold over time
LAW-068 — Boundary-First Restoration Law	Boundary repair often precedes safe participation
LAW-069 — Closure Stack Law	Closure cannot require impossible participation from harmed nodes
LAW-070 — Reintegration Membrane Law	Reintegration demand must match capacity
LAW-071 — No Forced Forgiveness Law	Forgiveness demand can exceed damaged capacity
LAW-072 — Quiet Minimization Debt Law	Systems may minimize when harmed nodes cannot meet pathway demand
LAW-073 — Restoration Before Scaling Law	Scaling increases demand and must wait for capacity
LAW-074 — Restoration Before Exploration Law	Exploration demand must not exceed damaged capacity
LAW-076 — Supersession Threshold Law	Systems that depend on impossible demand may need replacement
LAW-108 — Victim Pathway Capacity Law	LAW-108 is the justice/victim-specific expression of LAW-075
LAW-147 — Economic Contract State-Space Law	Consent fails when refusal demand exceeds survival capacity
LAW-152 — Biological Compression–Awareness Collapse Law	Biological compression reduces awareness and participation capacity
LAW-153 — Biological Integration Cost Law	Integration is expensive and may be lost under scarcity
LAW-154 — Biological Coherence-Preserving Scaling Law	Intervention burden must not outrun biological restoration capacity
LAW-156 — False Recovery Law	Symptom improvement is insufficient if capacity remains low

Aliases folded into this law:

Capacity Before Demand Law
Demand Cannot Exceed Damaged Capacity Law
Burden Inversion Law
Harmed-Node Capacity Law
No Demand Without Capacity Law
Repair Must Restore Capacity First Law
Capacity-Gated Pathway Law

Deduplication note:

This law should remain the root capacity-demand law. LAW-066 defines restoration capacity sufficiency under load and gain, LAW-108 specializes the pattern for victim pathways, LAW-147 specializes it for economic consent and contract state-space, and LAW-151 through LAW-156 express the biological versions of damaged capacity and false recovery.

13. Operator Mapping

TableScroll

Operator	Role in this law
`Γ`	Classifies pathway failure as incapacity, burden inversion, design failure, or noncompliance
`Π`	Represents demands, rules, deadlines, proof burdens, enforcement, or support controls
`Ξ`	Captures inversion when damaged nodes are blamed for capacity loss
`⊗`	Coupling or participation demand may need reduction
`ℛ`	Restoration should rebuild capacity or reduce demand
`Τ`	Validates whether the pathway remains capacity-matched over time
`Θ`	Prevents assuming capacity exists because the system requires it
`Σ`	Defines demand scope, support scope, pathway burden, and participation boundaries
`Ψ`	Field and affected-node feedback reveals whether demand is coherent
`Λ`	Compatibility determines whether a demand fits the node’s current capacity

Coherent operator sequence:

textScroll

Γ(capacity vs demand) → Θ(capacity uncertainty) → Σ(pathway scope / support) → Π(reduce demand + add support) → ℛ(rebuild capacity) → Ψ(validate harmed-node burden↓) → Τ(validate H↓ + recurrence↓ + O stable/↑)

Inverted operator sequence:

textScroll

harm reduces capacity → pathway demand↑ → Γ(noncompliance claimed) → Π(more burden) → H↑ → Ξ / ι↑ → recurrence → pathway failure

14. Machine-Readable Summary

yamlScroll

id: "LAW-075"
name: "Capacity Before Demand Law"
type: "law"
status: "draft"
family:
  - "Restoration Laws"
summary: "Systems fail when they demand capacities that harm, compression, or burden have already destroyed."
canonical_statement: "Systems fail when they demand capacities that harm, compression, or burden have already destroyed."
core_form: "demand > damaged node capacity ⇒ pathway failure / burden inversion"
expanded_form: "Demand↑ while K / σ / R_eff / BΣ / 𝓓 impaired ⇒ H↑ + recurrence↑ + O↓"
restoration_valid_form: "capacity restored or demand reduced ⇒ pathway becomes admissible"
capacity_gated_pathway_form: "Pathway_admissible ⇒ Demand ≤ available capacity + support"
variables:
  primary:
    - "Demand"
    - "Capacity"
    - "Support"
    - "K"
    - "σ"
    - "R"
    - "R_eff"
    - "BΣ"
    - "𝓓"
    - "H"
    - "O"
  secondary:
    - "ε"
    - "ι"
    - "Ξ"
    - "Au"
    - "FI"
    - "µᵢ"
    - "Φ"
    - "Λ"
    - "⊗"
    - "Γ"
    - "Π"
    - "ℛ"
    - "Θ"
    - "Σ"
    - "Ψ"
    - "Τ"
diagnostics:
  - "Capacity-Demand Ratio"
  - "Harmed-Node Capacity"
  - "Burden Inversion"
  - "Slack"
  - "Bandwidth"
  - "Restoration Capacity"
  - "Effective Restoration Capacity"
  - "Hidden Debt"
  - "Boundary Integrity"
  - "Recurrence"
  - "Ring-Down"
  - "Victim Pathway Capacity"
  - "Coherence Trajectory"
  - "Temporal Proof"
failure_modes:
  - "Capacity-Demand Mismatch"
  - "Burden Inversion"
  - "Victim Pathway Failure"
  - "Repair-Induced Overload"
  - "Feedback Without Slack"
  - "Forced Participation"
  - "Forced Reintegration"
  - "False Recovery"
  - "Reinjury Loop"
  - "Pseudo-Restoration"
  - "Hidden Debt Persistence"
  - "Chronic Basin Persistence"
  - "Delayed Collapse"
restoration_arcs:
  - "Capacity Restoration"
  - "Slack Regeneration"
  - "Load Shedding"
  - "Demand Reduction"
  - "Boundary Reconstitution"
  - "Controlled Decoupling"
  - "Victim Pathway Redesign"
  - "Restoration Capacity Rebuild"
  - "Hidden Debt Reduction"
  - "Temporal Validation"
  - "Recurrence Reduction"
related_laws:
  - "LAW-006"
  - "LAW-007"
  - "LAW-008"
  - "LAW-010"
  - "LAW-011"
  - "LAW-013"
  - "LAW-020"
  - "LAW-022"
  - "LAW-023"
  - "LAW-025"
  - "LAW-030"
  - "LAW-041"
  - "LAW-045"
  - "LAW-047"
  - "LAW-049"
  - "LAW-050"
  - "LAW-052"
  - "LAW-061"
  - "LAW-062"
  - "LAW-063"
  - "LAW-064"
  - "LAW-065"
  - "LAW-066"
  - "LAW-067"
  - "LAW-068"
  - "LAW-069"
  - "LAW-070"
  - "LAW-071"
  - "LAW-072"
  - "LAW-073"
  - "LAW-074"
  - "LAW-076"
  - "LAW-108"
  - "LAW-147"
  - "LAW-151"
  - "LAW-152"
  - "LAW-153"
  - "LAW-154"
  - "LAW-155"
  - "LAW-156"
related_invariants:
  - "INV-001"
  - "INV-006"
  - "INV-077"
  - "INV-078"
  - "INV-079"
  - "INV-080"
operator_sequence:
  coherent:
    - "Γ capacity vs demand"
    - "Θ capacity uncertainty"
    - "Σ pathway scope / support"
    - "Π reduce demand + add support"
    - "ℛ rebuild capacity"
    - "Ψ validate harmed-node burden↓"
    - "Τ validate H↓ + recurrence↓ + O stable/↑"
  inverted:
    - "harm reduces capacity"
    - "pathway demand↑"
    - "Γ noncompliance claimed"
    - "Π more burden"
    - "H↑"
    - "Ξ / ι↑"
    - "recurrence"
    - "pathway failure"
aliases:
  - "Capacity Before Demand Law"
  - "Demand Cannot Exceed Damaged Capacity Law"
  - "Burden Inversion Law"
  - "Harmed-Node Capacity Law"
  - "No Demand Without Capacity Law"
  - "Repair Must Restore Capacity First Law"
  - "Capacity-Gated Pathway Law"
deduplication_note: "Root capacity-demand law. LAW-066 defines restoration capacity sufficiency under load and gain, LAW-108 specializes the pattern for victim pathways, LAW-147 specializes it for economic consent and contract state-space, and LAW-151 through LAW-156 express the biological versions of damaged capacity and false recovery."
source: "content/archive/laws/technical.md"

15. Compact Card Version

LAW-075 — Capacity Before Demand Law

Systems fail when they demand capacities that harm, compression, or burden have already destroyed.

Core form:

textScroll

demand > damaged node capacity ⇒ pathway failure / burden inversion

Expanded form:

textScroll

Demand↑ while K / σ / R_eff / BΣ / 𝓓 impaired ⇒ H↑ + recurrence↑ + O↓

Plain meaning:

A pathway becomes incoherent when it requires a damaged node to supply the very capacity that the damage reduced. Restoration, justice, recovery, reporting, participation, reconciliation, work, repair, or reintegration cannot coherently demand bandwidth, clarity, energy, trust, stability, memory, proof, or endurance from a node whose capacity has already been depleted.

Restoration-valid form:

textScroll

capacity restored or demand reduced ⇒ pathway becomes admissible

Capacity-gated pathway form:

textScroll

Pathway_admissible ⇒ Demand ≤ available capacity + support

Primary variables:

Demand, Capacity, Support, K, σ, R, R_eff, BΣ, 𝓓, H, O, Au, FI, µᵢ, Γ, Π, ℛ, Θ, Σ, Ψ, Τ

Diagnostic signature:

A harmed or depleted node is asked to provide documentation, clarity, testimony, endurance, trust, feedback, performance, forgiveness, participation, or recovery beyond its available capacity while support is insufficient.

Failure risk:

Capacity-demand mismatch, burden inversion, victim pathway failure, repair-induced overload, feedback without slack, forced participation, forced reintegration, false recovery, reinjury loop, pseudo-restoration, hidden debt persistence, chronic basin persistence, delayed collapse.

Restoration priority:

Measure demand and damaged capacity, reduce pathway burden, add support, restore slack and boundaries, shift repair burden back to the system, and time-validate that hidden debt and recurrence decrease.

LAW-074 — Restoration Before Exploration Law

Registry

LAW-076 — Supersession Threshold Law