The Formal Architecture of the Dual Archetypes: Direct Empowerment, Relational Mobilization, and Asymmetric Error Costs

The Formal Architecture of the Dual Archetypes: Direct Empowerment, Relational Mobilization, and Asymmetric Error Costs Civilization Physics - Series: The Dual Archetypes of Human Nature This article develops a formal companion to The Sacred Victim Model and The Powerful Conqueror Model. It translates the dual-archetype framework into a minimal computational architecture while preserving a strict boundary between definitions, exact propositions under stated assumptions, and empirical sex-weighted hypotheses that still require direct testing. The central claim is that human agency should not be modeled as one ladder. Direct Empowerment and Relational Mobilization are separate causal channels: the first measures how strongly an agent’s own actions can produce distinguishable future states, while the second measures how strongly a person’s observable state or signal can alter the responses of other agents. This permits high patiency and high causal influence to coexist without contradiction. The article develops this argument through several linked mechanisms: Direct Empowerment formalizes the Powerful Conqueror channel as action-to-future-state capacity: how many distinguishable future states an agent can reliably produce and later sense through action. Relational Mobilization formalizes the Sacred Victim channel as causal information flow from a person’s state or signal into attention, protection, punishment, resource transfer, coalition recruitment, or institutional response. Orthogonality of causal channels shows that direct intervention and relational mobilization can vary independently, so patiency does not imply causal insignificance and direct action does not exhaust agency. Goal-conditioned causal leverage distinguishes productive resistance, causal deprivation, causal defeat, causal entrapment, and instrumentality without authorship by asking whether better action can still move a valued outcome. Bayesian Relational Admission models care as classification under hidden intent and asymmetric error costs, explaining why systems facing high false-exclusion costs admit ambiguous actors at lower thresholds. Strong Frame is formalized as Dual-Preserving Control: a policy that keeps belonging security and causal fidelity inside a joint viability region, so the person remains, reality remains, and repair remains possible. This article clarifies what mathematics can and cannot yet prove about the dual archetypes. It supplies variables, thresholds, comparative statics, and failure conditions, but does not claim a Deng-Hani-Ma-style micro-to-macro derivation of human sex architecture. The present contribution is a formal skeleton: Powerful Conqueror becomes Governed Direct Empowerment; Sacred Victim becomes Protected Relational Mobilization; Strong Frame becomes the coupling structure between belonging and causal truth. Keywords: dual archetypes, Direct Empowerment, Relational Mobilization, Powerful Conqueror, Sacred Victim, Strong Frame, Bayesian decision theory, asymmetric error costs, causal efficacy, protected patiency, goal-conditioned leverage, causal defeat, relational admission, response cascade, control theory, evolutionary dynamics, male structural theory, female structural theory