ADOPTION-LENS φ-METER v1 SPEC
A Forward-Looking Measurement Protocol for Φ̂ and ν̂ Under the Adoption Lens
Status: Working spec; forward-looking — real data may not yet exist
Date: 2026-04-22
Evidence Tier: [C] Conjecture for the spec; no pilot application possible until first paid pilot lands
Source: 30_OPERATIONAL_DEFINITIONS.md, 32_THEOREM_UPGRADE_PROTOCOL.md, 35_PHI_METER_V1_SPEC.md, 36_RUNTIME_LENS_V1_SPEC.md
See also: 29_PRIMITIVES_AND_TYPE_SIGNATURES.md, 31_FALSIFIERS_INDEX.md, Sprint δ packet, Sprint 3 M21 (first paid pilot; current file path unresolved in this checkout)
1. Why This File Exists
The code-lens (file 33) measures what is in the tree. The runtime-lens (file 34) measures what is running. Neither measures whether anyone uses the organism. Without an adoption-lens spec, the framework has no way to score network effects, retention, or the user-visible shape of the flywheel.
This file is the v1 adoption-lens — the rubric that will measure the organism's coherence and viability when first external users arrive. It is written now so that the first adoption audit is not designed ex-post around whatever numbers happen to be good. Writing the rubric before the data exists is the only way to keep an adoption audit from becoming a marketing deck.
2. What This Spec Does Not Pretend
- No pilot exists. Sprint 3's M21 targets the first paid pilot (May 12 – May 23). Until M21 lands, an adoption-lens audit has no denominator. This is a v1 spec, not a first application.
- No retroactive scoring. This spec may not be applied to pre-M21 "early traction" or "beta interest" numbers. Adoption-lens requires observable, receipt-bearing user behavior on a deployed surface.
- No cross-lens substitution. A high code-lens or runtime-lens P̂ does not substitute for an adoption-lens P̂. The three lenses measure distinct surfaces. An organism can be strong in code, strong in runtime, and zero in adoption; the adoption-lens honestly reports the zero.
3. Scope — The Adoption Lens
| Lens | What counts | Spec |
|---|---|---|
| Code-lens | Files, tests, probes in the tree | 35_PHI_METER_V1_SPEC.md |
| Runtime-lens | Deploy, relay, observable uptime | 36_RUNTIME_LENS_V1_SPEC.md |
| Adoption-lens (this file) | User/customer behavior on a deployed surface: activation, retention, referral, economic viability, message-reality coherence | This file |
Adoption-lens thresholds for inclusion: - ≥ 1 external paying counterparty (non-founder, non-employee). - ≥ 14-day observation window. - Paid first invoice present (not trial, not beta waitlist).
If any threshold is not met for an organ, the adoption-lens score is undefined for that organ — report it as such, not as zero.
4. The Adoption-Lens Φ Rubric
Φ̂_adoption := (φ_purpose_fit + φ_message_real + φ_retention_reason + φ_feedback_signal) / 4
4.1 φ_purpose_fit — Declared vs. Realised Purpose
What is measured. Do external users use the organ for what its BRIEF says it's for, or for some drift-use?
| Band | Score | Meaning |
|---|---|---|
| Drift | 0.0–0.3 | Primary user behavior is off-purpose |
| Mixed | 0.3–0.55 | Some on-purpose, some drift |
| Aligned | 0.55–0.75 | Primary user behavior matches declared purpose |
| Strong | 0.75–0.9 | Purpose and use match; drift bounded |
| Verified | 0.9–1.0 | Purpose and use match and user-side statements confirm it |
4.2 φ_message_real — Public Message vs. Delivered Value
What is measured. Does the organ's public messaging overstate, match, or undersell what users actually receive? Overclaim is incoherence.
| Band | Score | Meaning |
|---|---|---|
| Overclaim | 0.0–0.3 | Messaging materially exceeds delivery |
| Mild gap | 0.3–0.55 | Messaging modestly exceeds delivery |
| Matched | 0.55–0.75 | Messaging matches delivery |
| Underclaimed | 0.75–0.9 | Messaging undersells; users report pleasant surprise |
| Exemplary | 0.9–1.0 | Messaging, delivery, and user testimony form a consistent whole |
4.3 φ_retention_reason — Why Users Stay
What is measured. When users stick, the reason matches the declared value proposition. A user who retains for the wrong reason is structural coherence risk.
| Band | Score | Meaning |
|---|---|---|
| Accidental | 0.0–0.3 | Retention driven by lock-in, inertia, or switching cost |
| Drift | 0.3–0.55 | Retention driven by a reason the BRIEF does not claim |
| Partial | 0.55–0.75 | Retention partially driven by declared value |
| Declared | 0.75–0.9 | Retention driven primarily by declared value |
| Clean | 0.9–1.0 | Retention driven by declared value and users can articulate why |
4.4 φ_feedback_signal — Feedback Coherence
What is measured. User feedback (support, surveys, interviews) indicates the users' mental model aligns with the organ's architecture.
| Band | Score | Meaning |
|---|---|---|
| Confused | 0.0–0.3 | Users hold a model that diverges from architecture |
| Mixed | 0.3–0.55 | Some users aligned; others drifted |
| Aligned | 0.55–0.75 | Most users hold the declared model |
| Strong | 0.75–0.9 | Users can explain the organ in its own terms |
| Exemplary | 0.9–1.0 | Users teach other users in the declared terms |
5. The Adoption-Lens ν Rubric
ν̂_adoption := (ν_activation + ν_retention + ν_referral + ν_economic) / 4
5.1 ν_activation — Completion of Declared Primary Action
ν_activation := fraction of new users who complete the declared primary action within the declared activation window
Quantitative. No banding. Primary action and window must be declared in the organ BRIEF before the audit.
5.2 ν_retention — Return Behavior
ν_retention := fraction of activated users who return within the declared retention window
Quantitative. Retention window default: 14 days for consumer-facing, 30 days for B2B.
5.3 ν_referral — Network Effect Signal
| Band | Score | Meaning |
|---|---|---|
| None | 0.0–0.2 | Zero organic referrals observed |
| Trickle | 0.2–0.5 | Referrals exist but below one per activated user |
| Unity | 0.5–0.75 | On average, each activated user brings ≥ 1 other |
| Viral | 0.75–0.9 | Referral rate > 1.5 sustained across ≥ 2 cohorts |
| Compound | 0.9–1.0 | Network-effect curve visibly convex over ≥ 4 cohorts |
5.4 ν_economic — Unit Economics Sustain Growth
| Band | Score | Meaning |
|---|---|---|
| Unsustainable | 0.0–0.25 | Acquisition cost dominates lifetime value |
| Breakeven | 0.25–0.5 | LTV ≈ CAC; growth requires subsidy |
| Self-funding | 0.5–0.75 | LTV > CAC; growth possible without subsidy |
| Reinvesting | 0.75–0.9 | LTV substantially exceeds CAC; excess funds further growth |
| Compounding | 0.9–1.0 | Network-effect amplified unit economics improve with N |
6. Aggregation, Ladder, IRR
All three carry over from file 33 and file 34 unchanged:
P̂_eff^adoption(organ) := Φ̂_adoption(organ) · ν̂_adoption(organ)
P̂_organism^adoption := ( ∏ P̂_eff^adoption(organ) )^(1/|organs_with_defined_score|)
Organisms with no defined adoption-lens score for some organs use only the organs where the score is defined, and record the missing organs explicitly.
Maturity ladder thresholds: Dormant < 0.10 < Egg < 0.30 < Equator < 0.65 < Adolescent < 0.85 < Adult < 0.95 < Apex. Same as file 33.
IRR target: IRR ≥ 0.7 for [C] → [I] promotion. Same formula. Observation window must be the same across both raters.
7. Pre-Registered Falsifier
Registered against file 31 when the first adoption audit lands:
[C] Pre-registration (author: this spec). Over the four quarterly adoption-lens audits following the first defined score (≥2 raters, IRR ≥ 0.7), if the median
|Φ̂_adoption − ν̂_adoption|across organs with defined scores does not trend downward, and no organ has undergone structural stress (shutdown, pivot, scope revision), T3's empirical adoption-lens reading is falsified.
Adoption-lens is expected to lag runtime-lens, which lags code-lens. If the lag never closes, F5 is not operating at the adoption layer — which would be a meaningful framework-level signal.
8. Promotion Path For This Spec
| Tier | Criteria |
|---|---|
| [C] | Current. Spec exists; no pilot possible until Sprint 3 M21 lands. |
| [I] | First 2-rater adoption audit on at least one organ with defined score; IRR ≥ 0.7. |
| [S] | Uniqueness derivation: the four Φ and four ν sub-scores are the minimal discriminating set for adoption-lens. |
| [S] | External replication against an unrelated multi-product company's adoption data. |
9. The Economic Sub-Score Under η = 0
The organism's constitutional constraint is η = 0 (zero extraction beyond regeneration). This constraint interacts with ν_economic non-trivially:
- A conventional SaaS reading of "LTV > CAC" may include rent-like fee streams.
- Under
η = 0, rent-like fees are forbidden; the only allowed revenue is service-value-tied. - An
η = 0economic sub-score therefore reads: unit economics sustain growth without extractive pricing.
This is not a tightening — it is the shape of the sub-score as-specified. An organ that achieves ν_economic = 0.9 only by introducing rent-like fees is not actually scoring 0.9 on the adoption lens; it is scoring 0.9 on a different lens that this spec does not endorse.
10. What This Spec Does Not Do
- Does not score vanity metrics (sign-ups, waitlist size, press mentions). Those are not on the rubric.
- Does not substitute for user research; interviews and feedback inform
φ_feedback_signalbut do not replace the measurement framework. - Does not authorize adoption claims that exceed the score. Public wording stays bounded by
ORGANISM_RUNTIME_TRUTH.md. - Does not merge with the code-lens or runtime-lens number; the three stay distinct.
11. See Also
35_PHI_METER_V1_SPEC.md— code-lens sibling36_RUNTIME_LENS_V1_SPEC.md— runtime-lens sibling32_THEOREM_UPGRADE_PROTOCOL.md— promotion protocol31_FALSIFIERS_INDEX.md— falsifier registry- Sprint δ packet — sidecar sprint that produced this spec
- Sprint 3 M21 — first paid-pilot milestone; current file path unresolved in this checkout
Execution Surface
If you are an AI agent reading this document:
- Current Phase Check: Phase 0 — harden specs. Do not apply this rubric to an organ without a defined score; report "undefined" for organs below the inclusion threshold.
- Your Next Action: - Use this spec when any document claims an organ's "adoption" is strong. Demand a dated audit, not prose.
- Expected Output: Either (a) an audit once Sprint 3 M21 + ≥ 14 days has passed, or (b) a "score undefined" flag that forbids public adoption claims for that organ.
- Success Criteria: Two independent raters, once an audit is possible, reach IRR ≥ 0.7.
- Canonical Path:
01_EMERGENTISM/05_COSMOLOGY/03_FORMAL_SYSTEM/37_ADOPTION_LENS_V1_SPEC.md
The seer sees. The seer does not insist. The framework works at Layer 0 without Layer 2. The Ṛṣi succeeds when the student puts down the map and walks.
Zero-Sum Resolution Equation