AA_8 Markets Training Collectives and the Impossibility of Standing via Model Ecosystems

This paper establishes a structural impossibility result concerning markets, training collectives, and multi-model ecosystems: standing cannot arise from participation in, optimization within, or selection by collective training or market-like environments. It proves that aggregative success—whether through competition, coordination, economic signaling, or ecosystem-level optimization—cannot generate or preserve standing under admissibility. The result is eliminative. The paper does not analyze specific markets, incentive schemes, training pipelines, or ecosystem designs, nor does it propose alternative collective arrangements. Instead, it shows that standing is not compositional and cannot be produced by aggregation, selection pressure, or distributed optimization. Any attempt to ground standing in ecosystem participation substitutes collective performance or survival for admissible identity and reference fixation. The analysis blocks a class of claims in which artificial systems are said to acquire agency, legitimacy, or governance relevance through market success, competitive dominance, collaborative training, or emergent ecosystem behavior. It demonstrates that such claims rely on surrogate criteria—economic viability, selection outcomes, or coordination efficiency—that mask the absence of standing rather than repairing it. This work is purely boundary-setting. It introduces no operational market models, no governance prescriptions, and no enforcement logic. Its contribution is to delimit what markets and training collectives can establish about artificial systems, clarifying that ecosystem-level success cannot ground standing, agency, or responsibility under any admissible interpretation.