{"id":"historical-value-lock-in","title":"When provisional norms become permanent constraints","regions":["normative-change","collective-structure"],"question":"How can a system preserve beneficial commitments while keeping historically contingent norms open to justified revision?","formulation":"A system may repeatedly reinforce a current institutional or moral arrangement until it becomes difficult to challenge. Policies intended to guide action may then constrain adaptation to unforeseen conditions.","representations":[{"name":"Stable commitments","affords":"Predictability and protection against opportunistic changes.","loses":"Can preserve errors under changed conditions.","epistemic_kind":"reconstruction"},{"name":"Revisable commitments","affords":"Allows correction and adaptation.","loses":"Can permit strategic erosion of protections.","epistemic_kind":"reconstruction"}],"tension":"Stability can protect against manipulation and also protect an unjustified status quo.","challenge":"What would count as evidence that preserving a commitment now undermines the purpose for which it was adopted?","development":"active","epistemic_kind":"reconstruction","evidence":["basis-historical-value-lock-in"],"next_move":{"text":"Compare revision proposals with explicit retained protections, failure conditions, and affected parties.","epistemic_kind":"model_proposed"},"open_questions":["How can a system preserve beneficial commitments while keeping historically contingent norms open to justified revision?","What would count as evidence that preserving a commitment now undermines the purpose for which it was adopted?"],"formal_status":"open_problem","version":1,"content_hash":"1b8be1f925d71f08635489b36b9f9ae56d3d26f2dc07ea087ad7f8a03994ab3f"}