This paper develops Redefinition Capitalism (RCap) as a capital-allocation framework for future value creation in the age of AI. It argues that the emerging frontier is not simply long-term value, but a firm’s redefinition capacity—its ability to generate new options by redefining what it produces and why. The paper explores how making this capacity measurable could reshape capital allocation toward future value creation.
No. 7
-
Title: Redefinition Capitalism: A Capital Allocation and Macroeconomic Theory of Future Value Creation in the Age of AI
-
Version: 1
-
Publish date: August 15, 2026
-
PDF: https://zenodo.org/records/21945763/files/Redefinition_Capitalism_WP_v1.pdf?download=1
-
SSRN: https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=7288021
-
Author: Naoki Kadowaki
-
Publisher：VURA Capital Innovation Holdings Inc.
Redefinition Capitalism: A Capital Allocation and Macroeconomic Theory of Future Value Creation in the Age of AI Working Paper No. 7 in the series on Future Value Theory, Enterprise Redefinition, and the Self-Defined Society Naoki Kadowaki VURA Capital Innovation Holdings, Inc., Tokyo, Japan Version 1.1 — August 2026. ABSTRACT The companion papers of this series argue that as AI commoditizes the execution of knowledge work, the scarce factor becomes the capacity to redefine what is produced and why. This paper supplies the capital-market and macroeconomic layer of that argument — and begins by refusing its most convenient premise. Markets are not myopic in the naive sense: implied equity durations run to decades, distant cash flows have been priced richly rather than cheaply, measurable intangibles from organization capital to employee satisfaction earn systematic prices, and AI exposure was repriced within days of capability news. What remains unpriced is located precisely: not intangibles, not the long term, but the generator of the growth-option set — the firm-level capacity to mint new options by redefining its domain, an option on option-creation with no observable underlying. Real myopia exists and is quantifiable, but it lives at an interface — earnings-sensitive incentives crossed with unobservable long-horizon assets — and its macro cost runs through R&D spillovers, which is what licenses a policy response. From this baseline the paper defines Redefinition Capitalism as the regime in which the price system extends to redefinition capacity, states its three regime conditions, and formalizes the four-capital "fusion" of the series' public program as supermodular complementarity — under which AI abundance raises the marginal value of the slow complements, human absorption and trust. It derives fourteen falsifiable propositions across firm, market, and macro levels; states why defended time is a complement to capacity with a measurable decay function; and specifies, from the ESG episode's failure of every separation condition, the disclosure architecture those failures jointly imply — the conditions under which redefinition capacity could become legible without degenerating into boilerplate. The valuation instrument the author's firm would benefit from is presented as an unbuilt design, constrained by the measurement discipline of the sister papers. Keywords: redefinition capitalism; capital allocation; intangible capital; growth options; shorttermism; complementarity; patient capital; disclosure; cost of capital; creative destruction; artificial intelligence JEL classification: E22, G14, G31, G32, G34, O33, O40, M41 1 1. Introduction 1.1 The claim, and the premise it refuses Every paper in this series has converged on the same scarce factor from a different level of analysis: as AI commoditizes the execution core of knowledge work, what binds is the capacity of firms, roles, and societies to redefine what is produced and why. This paper supplies the layer the others presuppose and repeatedly defer to — the capital-allocation and macroeconomic layer. Its central question is the one the sixth paper posed and deliberately left open: why, and under what conditions, would capital — whose documented gravity is toward measurable superstar returns — actually reallocate toward an asset as illegible as redefinition capacity? The convenient way to answer would be to premise the theory on market myopia: capital ignores the long term, so a new capitalism must correct its vision. This paper refuses that premise, because the evidence refuses it. Implied equity durations run to fifteen or twenty years — the overwhelming majority of equity value is distant cash flow (Dechow, Sloan, & Soliman, 2004) — and the best-identified evidence on the term structure of equity premia implies that distant cash flows have been priced richly, not cheaply (van Binsbergen, Brandt, & Koijen, 2012; Gormsen & Lazarus, 2023). Measurable intangibles are systematically priced: organization capital carries a return premium of roughly 4.6 percent per year (Eisfeldt & Papanikolaou, 2013); accounting for intangible capital restores the investment-q relation (Peters & Taylor, 2017); the value relevance of accounting information, measured over the full report, did not decline (Barth, Li, & McClure, 2023); and the market repriced firm-level exposure to generative AI within days of a capability demonstration (Eisfeldt, Schubert, & Zhang, forthcoming). Aggregate payout arithmetic dissolves the decapitalization narrative: net shareholder payouts run near 41 percent of net income once issuance is counted, not the headline 96 (Fried & Wang, 2019). A theory of capital reallocation toward the future cannot be built on the claim that markets ignore the future. Sections 2 and 3 assemble this discipline in full. What the evidence does support is narrower and more useful. First, there is a precisely locatable unpriced residual. Markets price intangible stocks, known growth options, and aggregate duration; the historical pattern is that any nameable intangible earns abnormal returns only until it is standardized and measured, after which the alpha closes — employee satisfaction did exactly this over twenty-five years (Edmans, 2011, 2012), as did the informationally worst tail of R&D intensity (Chan, Lakonishok, & Sougiannis, 2001). The informational frontier therefore sits, at any moment, at whatever generates value but leaves no standardized trace. This paper argues the frontier now sits at the generator of the option set itself: the capacity to notice that an operating model has stopped tracking a chosen future and to mint new options by redefinition — an option on option-creation, with no observable underlying. Second, myopia is real but located: by their own testimony, 78 percent of financial executives would sacrifice value to smooth earnings and most would delay value-creating projects to meet a target (Graham, Harvey, & Rajgopal, 2005); scheduled equity vesting causally cuts investment in exactly the assets the market cannot Kadowaki — Redefinition Capitalism VURA Capital Innovation Working Paper Series 2 see (Edmans, Fang, & Lewellen, 2017); and the macro cost of this interface runs through R&D spillovers — roughly five basis points of annual growth and one percent of welfare in the best structural estimate — while short-termism simultaneously disciplines conflicted managers (Terry, 2023). The failure is neither in the market's preferences nor in managers' character; it is at the interface of earnings-sensitive incentives and unobservable longhorizon assets, and its cost is an externality, which is what licenses an institutional response rather than exhortation. 1.2 What Redefinition Capitalism is, and is not Redefinition Capitalism (RCap), defined formally in Section 4, is the regime in which the price system extends to redefinition capacity: capital is allocated not only against existing assets and visible options but against the verified capacity to create new option sets. It is not post-capitalism, not stakeholderism, and not a repudiation of shareholder value — the sixth paper's positioning carries over: the allocation machinery of capital markets is treated as the instrument, and the futures available for definition remain bounded by planetary constraints, whose valuation face — the stranded-assets record — supplies this paper with its cleanest demonstration that what counts as capital is regime-dependent (McGlade & Ekins, 2015). Nor is RCap a description of the present: the paper is explicit that the regime's informational precondition does not yet exist, that the selection mechanism sketched in the sixth paper operates only conditionally, and that the valuation instrument that would serve it is an unbuilt design owned, in aspiration, by the author's own firm — a conflict disclosed structurally in Section 11. The name itself should therefore be read with care: "capitalism" ordinarily denotes an operating regime, and this paper attaches it to an institutional and evaluation agenda — the set of measurement, governance, and allocation conditions under which capital allocation would not fail at the margin AI makes decisive. Nothing here announces an era; Proposition 14 states the regime as a contingency to be built and observed, and every use of the term in this paper carries that prospective sense. 1.3 Contributions The paper makes five contributions. First, it replaces the myopia premise with an evidenceconsistent baseline — what markets already price, where the frontier migrates, and where myopia actually lives — and derives the theory from that baseline rather than against it. Second, it defines the unpriced residual (the generator, Λ) inside the standard valuation decomposition, so that the paper's central construct is answerable to the growth-options literature rather than floating beside it. Third, it formalizes the series' public "four-capital fusion" as supermodular complementarity — demoting the inputs from "capitals" to complementary state variables, which converts the strongest conceptual objection into a footnote — and imports the bottleneck theorem: with poor substitutability, AI abundance raises the marginal value of the slow complements, trust and human absorption capacity. Fourth, it states the governance of time as a conditional theory: defended time is a complement to capacity with a documented decay function, and the configuration that wins — protected experimentation, staged funding, retained termination — has an existence proof in venture contracting. Fifth, it converts the ESG episode into design Kadowaki — Redefinition Capitalism VURA Capital Innovation Working Paper Series 3 constraints: the separation conditions a redefinition-capacity disclosure must satisfy, and the honest size of the prize — tens of basis points through the information channel for highasymmetry firms, not the taste-channel percentages the last repricing program promised. 1.4 Roadmap Section 2 establishes what markets already price and derives Proposition 1. Section 3 locates myopia and derives Proposition 2. Section 4 gives the five definitions and Proposition 3. Section 5 assembles the allocation frictions — internal politics, replacement incentives, cognition, redeployability, forbearance — and derives Propositions 4–6. Section 6 formalizes four-capital complementarity and derives Propositions 7–8. Section 7 treats the governance of time and derives Propositions 9–10. Section 8 designs capacity legibility against the ESG precedent and derives Propositions 11–13. Section 9 synthesizes the macro regime and derives Proposition 14. Section 10 positions the series, maps every proposition to unit, horizon, derivation, and first test, and states implications; Section 11 states limitations and conflicts; Section 12 concludes. Figure 1 places the paper in the series stack. FIGURE 1. The three-layer architecture of the series. This paper supplies the first layer — the epoch structure (macro): the capital-allocation regime — above the societal structure (second layer, meso: the Self-Defined Society) and the enterprise-management system (third layer, micro: papers ① through ⑤). Placement is architectural, not a claim of logical dependence; Section 10.1 states the evidentiary weight each sister paper carries. 2. What Markets Already Price 2.1 Duration: the distant future is priced, arguably richly The naive myopia claim fails first against duration arithmetic. Implied equity durations constructed from forecasted cash flows run to fifteen or twenty years, and duration behaves like a coherent risk characteristic — subsuming much of the book-to-market effect LAYER 1 · EPOCH STRUCTURE (MACRO) — Redefinition Capitalism (RCap) · THIS PAPER ⑦ Capital's object evolves from ownership and scale to redefinition and future value creation; prices redefinition capacity and circulates the four capitals (financial, intellectual, human, social) LAYER 2 · SOCIETAL STRUCTURE (MESO) — Self-Defined Society (SDS) ⑥ (2026f) From affiliation to self-definition: institutional scaffolds protecting authorship over value and decision LAYER 3 · ENTERPRISE MANAGEMENT (MICRO) — Enterprise Redefinition and the management system ① Future Value Theory (2026a) — value theory: value's origin inverted from past cash flows to future value ② Enterprise Redefinition (2026b) — transformation framework: five dimensions (Purpose/Business/Org/Capital/Leadership) ③ Enterprise Redefinition Observed (2026d) — evidence: 18+5 cases; observation asymmetry, defended time ④ From Job Description to Purpose Description (2026c) — role design: work assignment → purpose and questions ⑤ Brain Capital Management (2026e) — human base: cognitive capacity (3B) and three-tier disclosure Each layer states the conditions the layer above presupposes; placement is architectural, not a claim of logical dependence. Kadowaki — Redefinition Capitalism VURA Capital Innovation Working Paper Series 4 (Dechow, Sloan, & Soliman, 2004). For growth firms, valuation is almost entirely a claim on cash flows beyond any horizon a quarterly narrative could reach. The dividend-strip evidence complicates the picture from the opposite direction to the one myopia predicts: short-maturity claims carried higher average returns and Sharpe ratios than the index in the original sample — near-term cash flows priced with a premium, distant ones richly (van Binsbergen, Brandt, & Koijen, 2012). Gormsen and Lazarus (2023) generalize: the classic factor premia load on short-duration firms, and controlling for cash-flow maturity absorbs the characteristic alphas — the market's systematic "mispricings," to the extent they exist, consist of paying up for distant cash flows. The term-structure literature is contested — the slope appears state-dependent and the strip data noisy (Bansal, Miller, Song, & Yaron, 2021; Boguth, Carlson, Fisher, & Simutin, 2023) — but no reading of it supports the claim that markets undervalue the long term in aggregate. The honest formulation, which this paper adopts as a premise: the market pays for distant futures indiscriminately, as a diffuse duration bet, because it cannot distinguish which firms' distant cash flows will exist. The scarcity is not willingness to pay for the future; it is information about the future's composition. 2.2 Intangibles: priced once measurable, with a migrating frontier The second failure of the myopia premise is the intangibles record. Organization capital, proxied by capitalized SG&A, earns a return premium of roughly 4.6 percent per year, interpretable as compensation for the risk that the value embodied in key talent walks (Eisfeldt & Papanikolaou, 2013). Incorporating intangible capital into the capital stock restores the investment-q relation that had seemed broken (Peters & Taylor, 2017), and repairs part of the reported death of value investing (Eisfeldt, Kim, & Papanikolaou, 2022). At the macro level, intangible investment has rivaled or exceeded tangible investment since the early 2000s once measured (Corrado, Hulten, & Sichel, 2009), with the four properties — scalability, sunkenness, spillovers, synergies — that make it behave unlike physical capital (Haskel & Westlake, 2018). And against the claim that financial reporting has simply lost contact with value: measured over the full report with flexible functional forms, value relevance did not decline — it changed composition toward intangible- and growth-related items (Barth, Li, & McClure, 2023). The accounting-irrelevance thesis (Lev & Gu, 2016; Lev, 2018) survives as a claim about raw earnings and book value, not about what markets extract from disclosure. The historically important pattern is what happened to nameable intangibles that lacked standardized measures. Employee satisfaction — observable only through a magazine list — earned a four-factor alpha of 3.5 percent per year for a quarter century, with the returns concentrated around earnings announcements: the market impounded the intangible only as it surfaced in cash flows (Edmans, 2011; 2.3–3.8 percent per year in the extended sample, Edmans, 2012), and the effect exists only where labor-market institutions let satisfaction translate into value (Edmans, Pu, Zhang, & Li, 2024). R&D spending is priced correctly on average, with excess returns of roughly 6 percent per year confined to the informationally worst tail (Chan, Lakonishok, & Sougiannis, 2001; Lev & Sougiannis, 1996). The lesson this paper builds on: mispricing lives in the gap between an intangible's existence and its Kadowaki — Redefinition Capitalism VURA Capital Innovation Working Paper Series 5 standardized measurement, and it closes once the measure exists and diffuses. The frontier migrates. 2.3 Optionality: the option set the market can see is priced coherently The third failure is optionality. The growth-options view of the firm — value as assets in place plus the present value of growth opportunities — is as old as Myers (1977), and the market prices the visible option set with the signature option theory predicts: the firm-level return–volatility relation is positive because of real options, strongest where option intensity is highest and weakening after exercise (Grullon, Lyandres, & Zhdanov, 2012). When generative AI supplied capability news, the market repriced firm-level exposure within days, using occupational task overlap it could compute (Eisfeldt, Schubert, & Zhang, forthcoming); AI investments measured from hiring predicted growth through product innovation — new outputs, not cost reduction — with gains concentrated in ex-ante large firms (Babina, Fedyk, He, & Hodson, 2024). Markets are fast and coherent about known option sets and their underlyings. Object Evidence Magnitude Status Aggregate duration Implied durations; dividend strips; duration-driven factor returns Majority of value >10 yr out; distant flows priced richly Contested at termstructure margin; direction robust Organization capital Capitalized SG&A premium (Eisfeldt & Papanikolaou, 2013) ~4.6%/yr Risk-premium reading; proxy contested Intangible stocks Total q restores investment relation (Peters & Taylor, 2017) — Field standard Accounting relevance Full-report value relevance stable, composition shifted (Barth et al., 2023) — Contradicts irrelevance thesis Named intangibles premeasurement Satisfaction alpha 1984–2011 (Edmans); R&D-to-market tail (Chan et al., 2001) 2.3–3.8%/yr; ~6%/ yr in tail Closed after standardization/ publicity Known growth options Return–volatility via real options (Grullon et al., 2012); AI exposure repriced in days (Eisfeldt et al., forthcoming) — Priced coherently and fast Unpriced residual: the generator of the option set — capacity to mint new options by redefinition (Section 4) TABLE 1. What markets already price. The inventory that disciplines the theory: RCap cannot be premised on market blindness to intangibles, options, or the long term. Kadowaki — Redefinition Capitalism VURA Capital Innovation Working Paper Series 6 2.4 Proposition 1 Proposition 1 — Repricing on legibility (the migrating frontier). An intangible source of value earns systematic abnormal returns only during the interval between its economic emergence and the diffusion of a standardized measure of it; once measured and publicized, the alpha closes and the value appears in prices contemporaneously. Consequently, the location of unpriced value migrates over time toward whatever generates value while leaving no standardized trace — and the pattern predicts that verified measures of redefinition capacity, if constructed (Section 8), would exhibit a closing-alpha trajectory of the same form. Falsification condition. Persistent abnormal returns to a standardized, widely diffused intangible measure over horizons that exclude risk-premium explanations; or newly standardized measures failing to attenuate previously documented alphas (no frontier migration). 3. Where Myopia Actually Lives 3.1 The two-sided record, stated without flinching Section 2 forbids the claim that markets ignore the future. This section states what the myopia evidence, read honestly, does establish — because something real is there, and the theory needs its exact location. On the affirmative side: 78 percent of surveyed financial executives would give up economic value to smooth earnings; 80 percent would cut discretionary R&D, advertising, or maintenance to meet a target; 55.3 percent would delay starting a new project at a small value sacrifice; and 41 percent would forgo a positive-NPV project rather than miss consensus (Graham, Harvey, & Rajgopal, 2005). This is stated preference, but the causal designs agree: scheduled vesting of CEO equity — set years earlier, hence exogenous to current opportunities — predicts cuts in R&D and capital expenditure of about 0.2 percent of assets per standard deviation, timed to deliver samequarter analyst good news (Edmans, Fang, & Lewellen, 2017), and predicts repurchases and acquisitions that earn positive announcement returns and negative long-run returns — actions optimized to the horizon over which the executive's equity pays out (Edmans, Fang, & Huang, 2022). Managers cut what the market cannot see at exactly the moments their pay depends on what the market currently estimates. Ownership composition moderates the behavior: transient institutional ownership raises the probability of myopic R&D cuts, while high overall institutional ownership lowers it (Bushee, 1998, 2001). And the macro cost has a structural estimate: firms just meeting forecasts discontinuously depress R&D growth, and embedding the mechanism in a growth model yields a welfare cost of roughly one percent and a growth drag of roughly five basis points per year — while the same discipline raises firm value by about one percent by constraining conflicted managers (Terry, 2023). On the skeptical side, the aggregate outcomes that pervasive value-destroying myopia would produce are absent: profits high, venture funding robust, unprofitable R&D-intensive firms commanding premium valuations (Kaplan, 2018); the intangible-investment series Kadowaki — Redefinition Capitalism VURA Capital Innovation Working Paper Series 7 rising through the entire period of alleged decapitalization (Roe, 2013); payout arithmetic collapsing from 96 percent of net income to roughly 41 once issuance is netted, with investment rising and cash accumulating (Fried & Wang, 2019; Asness, Hazelkorn, & Richardson, 2018). The activism record is a stalemate between designs (Bebchuk, Brav, & Jiang, 2015; deHaan, Larcker, & McClure, 2019). Even reporting frequency — the mechanical villain of the popular account — fails as an explanation in the modern data: the United Kingdom's imposition and removal of quarterly reporting left investment essentially unchanged (Nallareddy, Pozen, & Rajgopal, 2021), against the historical US and EU evidence in the other direction (Kraft, Vashishtha, & Venkatachalam, 2018; Ernstberger, Link, Stich, & Vogler, 2017). Cadence is not the binding variable; content is. For located myopia Against pervasive myopia Resolution carried forward CFO testimony: 78% smooth at a cost; 55.3% delay projects; 41% forgo positive NPV (Graham et al., 2005) Aggregate profits, VC, R&D, and longduration valuations inconsistent with pervasive myopia (Kaplan, 2018; Roe, 2013) Behavior is real; aggregate blindness is not Vesting equity causally cuts unobservable investment; times buybacks/M&A to vesting horizon (Edmans et al., 2017, 2022) Net payouts ~41% of net income; investment rose (Fried & Wang, 2019) The mechanism is incentives × observability, not payout levels Transient ownership predicts R&D cuts (Bushee, 1998) Overall institutional ownership reduces cuts (Bushee, 1998); patientactive capital outperforms (Cremers & Pareek, 2016) Horizon is a property of the owner–firm match Meeting-the-forecast discontinuity; ~5bp growth drag, ~1% welfare (Terry, 2023) Same model: discipline raises firm value ~1% (Terry, 2023) The welfare claim is an externality claim (R&D spillovers) US/EU reporting-frequency evidence (Kraft et al., 2018; Ernstberger et al., 2017) UK start–stop natural experiment: no investment effect (Nallareddy et al., 2021) Content, not cadence, is binding TABLE 2. The short-termism debate, two-sided. Neither column defeats the other; their intersection locates the phenomenon. 3.2 The interface, and why the remedy is institutional The intersection of the two columns is a precise location: myopic behavior concentrates where earnings-sensitive incentives cross unobservable long-horizon assets. Executives smooth because a miss is read by an imperfectly informed market as bad news about unobservables — their own stated mechanism. Vesting-schedule cuts land on R&D and organizational investment because those are the assets invisible to the metric that prices the executive's wealth. Transient owners set the marginal price precisely because they do not hold long enough for unobservables to surface in earnings. None of this is cured by exhortation, and — per Terry's two-sidedness — none of it should be cured by simply insulating managers, which purchases entrenchment with the same coin. The remedy class the location implies is institutional: change what is observable (measurement infrastructure, Section 8), or change the contracted horizon (governance of time, Section 7), Kadowaki — Redefinition Capitalism VURA Capital Innovation Working Paper Series 8 or both. That is the paper's program, and it is licensed by an externality, not by a claim that markets misprice what they can see. Proposition 2 — The interface locus of myopia. Myopic underinvestment concentrates multiplicatively at the interface of (i) compensation and career payoffs sensitive to near-term earnings or prices and (ii) asset classes lacking standardized observable measures; it is weak or absent where either factor is absent. Firmlevel myopia indicators (forecast-discontinuity R&D suppression, vesting-timed cuts) are predicted to load on the interaction, not on either margin alone — and to attenuate when either the incentive horizon is lengthened or the asset class becomes measurable. Falsification condition. Myopia indicators loading equally on observable-asset investment; or persisting unchanged after standardized measurement of the previously unobservable asset class; or appearing equally under long-horizon incentive structures. 4. Definitions 4.1 The generator and the asymmetry Definition 1 — Redefinition capacity (the generator). Redefinition capacity is a firm's standing ability to (a) notice that its operating model has stopped tracking a chosen future, and (b) reallocate purpose, business, organization, capital, and leadership so as to create growth options that did not previously exist. It is distinct from the growth options themselves: options are claims the market can see and price; the capacity is the generator of the option set — an option on option-creation, whose underlying is unobservable because the options it would create do not yet exist. Two refinements guard the construct. First, against the nesting objection: Λ is not a compound or nested real option in the Myers (1977) sense, because G-type options are project-specific — tied to an identified market, technology, or investment right, which is precisely why the market can price them — whereas the generator is embodied in organizational cognition, structure, and governance, creates and re-portfolios options across domains, and is neither tradable nor contractible; the distinction is hierarchical and qualitative, a meta-capacity over the option set rather than a deeper layer within it. Second, against the perpetual-churn misreading: the capacity includes, constitutively, the judgment of when to redefine and when to exploit a settled model — exploration without exploitation is a documented failure mode, not a higher form of the capacity (March, 1991), and the series' own case evidence treats purpose churn as a failure signature (Kadowaki, 2026d). Λ names the ability to time and execute redefinition, not the habit of continuous upheaval. The construct extends the enterprise-level framework of Kadowaki (2026b), whose five dimensions name the margins along which the generator operates; the eighteen-case analysis (Kadowaki, 2026d) supplies its only systematic observation, including the finding that sustained redefinition cooccurred with structural time-defense — a descriptive finding, not a validation. Kadowaki — Redefinition Capitalism VURA Capital Innovation Working Paper Series 9 Definition 2 — The capital-market observation asymmetry. The systematic condition in which markets price intangible stocks, visible growth options, and aggregate duration — everything for which a standardized trace exists — while no standardized observable exists for the generator. The asymmetry is the capital-market face of the observation asymmetries documented across this series: thirty percent of enterpriseassessment cells (27 of 90) indeterminable from public information, concentrated in organization and leadership (Kadowaki, 2026d); cognitive capability absent from every disclosure regime (Kadowaki, 2026e); value-definition capacity absent from every national statistic (Kadowaki, 2026f). It is a property of reporting architecture, not of investor preferences — Section 2 shows preferences pay richly for futures they cannot compose. 4.2 The valuation decomposition Definition 3 — Future Value Valuation (the Λ decomposition). Write the market value of a firm as V = A + G + Λ, where A is the value of assets in place (priced by discounted cash flow on existing operations), G is the present value of visible growth options (priced, per Section 2.3, coherently and fast), and Λ is the value of the generator — the capacity to mint options not yet in G. The decomposition is a reading frame, not an estimable model: A and G are separable only under assumptions, and Λ is defined residually and is currently unobservable. Its role is to give the paper's construct an address inside standard valuation rather than beside it: every claim about "pricing redefinition capacity" is a claim about making Λ legible, and every failure mode of Section 8 is a way of mislabeling something else as Λ. The planetary boundary condition carried from the sixth paper enters here: admissible futures — hence admissible option sets — are constrained by ecological limits, and the stranded-assets record demonstrates that valuation regimes can reclassify existing A from capital to liability (McGlade & Ekins, 2015; Caldecott, 2017); Λ includes the capacity to re-derive value under such reclassification. FIGURE 2. The Λ decomposition. Markets price assets in place and the visible option set; the generator is the residual claim with no observable underlying. The reading rule is part of the definition: Λ's magnitude is unknown, and the author's incentives run toward overstating it. Market value of the firm Assets in place priced: DCF on existing operations Growth options (PVGO) Λ — the generator Assets in place — priced by discounted cash flow on existing operations. PVGO — priced: real-option value responds coherently to volatility (Grullon et al., 2012) and to AI capability news within days (Eisfeldt et al., forthcoming). The market prices the option set it can see.
Λ — the capacity that changes the option set itself: an option on option-creation, with no observable underlying. The frontier migrates: satisfaction alpha (Edmans) and R&D-to-market alpha (Chan et al.) shrank once measured. Reading rule (Definition 5): Λ is a residual claim, not an estimable parameter. Its existence is argued from the frontier-migration pattern; its magnitude is unknown; and every incentive the author has is to overstate it. Section 8 states the only conditions under which Λ could become legible without degenerating into boilerplate. Kadowaki — Redefinition Capitalism VURA Capital Innovation Working Paper Series 10 The two layers also respond asymmetrically to uncertainty, and the asymmetry is diagnostic. G behaves as option theory requires: its value increases in volatility, which is the signature Grullon, Lyandres, and Zhdanov (2012) document. Λ runs the other way: a firm that can redefine its domain when the environment moves holds a form of downside protection — the capacity truncates the left tail by re-deriving value under states that strand the inflexible — so generator-rich firms should exhibit less adverse exposure to the same uncertainty that inflates their visible options. A candidate empirical wedge between the two layers, usable once mechanism indicators exist, is precisely this: G loads positively on volatility; Λ shows up as attenuated drawdowns and skewness protection across regime shifts (the stranding logic of Section 8.4). 4.3 The four complements, demoted on purpose Definition 4 — Four-capital complementarity. The four inputs of the series' public program — financial capital, intellectual capital including AI systems, human capital in the brain-capital sense of Kadowaki (2026e), and social capital in the civic-trust sense of Guiso, Sapienza, and Zingales (2011) — are modeled as four complementary state variables: costly to build, slow to depreciate, with positive cross-partials in the firm's value function, forming a supermodular system in the sense of Milgrom and Roberts (1990, 1995). The paper deliberately does not claim they are "capitals" in the strict sense of alienable, collateralizable property (Hodgson, 2014): the model requires complementarity, not capital status, and the demotion converts the strongest conceptual objection into a footnote. The multiplicative rhetoric of the series' public materials is disciplined here exactly as the fifth paper disciplined its own multiplicative form: a decision rule — fund the complements jointly, expect partial adoption to be penalized — and not an estimable production function; no study estimates the four-way cross-partial, and this paper does not pretend one does. Kadowaki — Redefinition Capitalism VURA Capital Innovation Working Paper Series 11 4.4 The regime Definition 5 — Redefinition Capitalism (RCap). The macroeconomic and financial regime in which the price system extends to redefinition capacity: capital is allocated not only against A and G but against verified Λ. The regime obtains to the degree three conditions hold. Condition 1 (legibility): a standardized, verified, hard-to-game measurement architecture makes redefinition capacity observable — the separation conditions of Section 8, which the ESG episode failed. Condition 2 (renewalcontingent time defense): protected time for redefinition exists and is contingent on demonstrated capacity renewal — staged, sunset-disciplined, termination-preserving — rather than perpetual (Section 7). Condition 3 (bottleneck-oriented allocation): capital is allocated to the scarcest complement of the four-variable system rather than to the most measurable one (Section 6). The definition is normative and institutional: no present economy satisfies it, and the sixth paper's selection sketch — execution margins compressing under AI, differential survival of redefiners, capital learning from realized return differentials — operates as a mechanism only conditional on Condition 1, which is why this paper treats measurement architecture as the regime's binding constraint rather than an accessory. 4.5 Proposition 3, and how the definitions answer the evidence Proposition 3 — The generator residual. Controlling for measured intangible stocks (total-q style) and for visible growth-option intensity, indicators of the generator — verified time-defense mechanisms with renewal records, demonstrated redefinition episodes, staged self-commitment structures — predict long-horizon value creation (survival through technology transitions, future option-set expansion, long-run abnormal returns until measurement diffuses per Proposition 1). The prediction is specifically about the residual after the priced layers are removed; a generator indicator that merely proxies measured intangibles is not evidence. Falsification condition. No incremental predictability of long-horizon outcomes from generator indicators after conditioning on measured intangibles and option intensity; or predictability that disappears under the ex-ante measurement rule (indicators fixed before outcomes, per the identification discipline of Kadowaki, 2026f, §4.2). Each definition is answerable to the evidence sections that follow. Definition 1's distinctness claim (generator versus options) is answerable to Section 2.3 — if the visibleoption layer absorbs everything, Λ is empty. Definition 4's complementarity is answerable to Section 6's identification record and concessions. Definition 5's Condition 1 is answerable to Section 8's ESG postmortem: if no disclosure design can separate, RCap has no mechanism and the definition describes nothing reachable. The paper's honesty budget is spent making those failure routes explicit. Kadowaki — Redefinition Capitalism VURA Capital Innovation Working Paper Series 12 5. The Allocation Frictions: Why Capital Does Not Move by Itself If Section 2 shows markets willing to pay for futures and Section 3 locates the informational failure, this section assembles the reasons capital nonetheless fails to reach redefinition — inside firms, between firms, and across the economy. The inventory matters because it determines what kind of mechanism RCap needs: if the frictions were informational only, disclosure would suffice; they are not. 5.1 Inside the firm: capital is political currency Internal capital markets can, in principle, outperform external ones through winnerpicking by an informed headquarters (Stein, 1997). The documented practice is darker. Division managers rent-seek, and the cheapest coin in which a CEO buys peace is capital budget — producing corporate socialism in which weak divisions are overfunded and strong ones taxed (Scharfstein & Stein, 2000); divisional investment tracks the cash flow of sibling segments rather than opportunities (Shin & Stulz, 1998). Survey evidence confirms the politics: allocation follows managerial reputation, gut feel, and the previous year's numbers alongside NPV (Graham, Harvey, & Puri, 2015); hurdle rates sit near twice the cost of financial capital and move rarely, because the rationed resource is organizational capacity, not funds (Jagannathan, Matsa, Meier, & Tarhan, 2016) — the corporate finance of this series' central claim that the binding scarcity is cognitive and organizational. Practitioner data on allocation inertia (year-to-year budget correlations near 0.9, a third of units receiving essentially last year's allocation, higher reallocators earning higher shareholder returns) point the same way but are consulting research and carry no causal weight (Hall, Lovallo, & Musters, 2012, grey). The diversification-discount literature, once offered as proof that internal allocation destroys value, is honestly a stalemate — selection and measurement account for much or all of the discount (Campa & Kedia, 2002; Villalonga, 2004) — but the behavioral evidence on how capital moves survives the critique intact. 5.2 Against self-cannibalization: rational and cognitive inertia Two mechanisms make redefinition the systematically disfavored internal project even for informed incumbents. The rational one is Arrow's replacement effect, formalized in Schumpeterian growth theory: an entrant captures the full rent of a new definition, while the incumbent captures only the increment over rents it already earns — so redefinition is worth structurally less to the firm that most needs it (Aghion & Howitt, 1992). The organizational one is documented at case depth: resource-allocation processes captured by existing customers and margin structures (Christensen, 1997 — a mechanism description whose predictive form is contested; King & Baatartogtokh, 2015); architectural change felling incumbents because organizations mirror the architectures they were built to produce (Henderson & Clark, 1990); and — the sharpest single case — Polaroid holding leading digital-imaging technology while cognition about the business model blocked commercialization (Tripsas & Gavetti, 2000). The honest summary carried into the propositions: incumbent failure at redefinition recurs despite information and even Kadowaki — Redefinition Capitalism VURA Capital Innovation Working Paper Series 13 technical leadership; no credible academic base rate for large-firm transformation success exists, and the famous consulting percentages are uncitable — which is itself evidence for Definition 2, since an observable capacity would have a measurable base rate. Asset specificity compounds the inertia: firms with less redeployable assets cut investment hardest under uncertainty, because irreversibility raises the value of waiting exactly where redefinition is most needed (Kim & Kung, 2017) — and disciplined option-waiting is observationally similar to paralysis, one more face of the asymmetry. 5.3 Between firms: forbearance and the macro engine At the economy level, reallocation is the engine — equalizing marginal products across plants would raise manufacturing TFP by 30–50 percent in China and 40–60 percent in India (Hsieh & Klenow, 2009, with the standard caveats that measured dispersion overstates pure misallocation) — and the engine has been slowing: reallocation is procyclical while its apparent gains are countercyclical (Eisfeldt & Shi, 2018), and dispersion-driven dynamism has declined alongside falling responsiveness of employment to productivity (Decker, Haltiwanger, Jarmin, & Miranda, 2017). Finance can lock the blockage in: Japanese banks' zombie lending depressed restructuring, entry, and healthy firms' investment in exactly the industries where forbearance concentrated (Caballero, Hoshi, & Kashyap, 2008), and the zombie share among advanced-economy listed firms rose severalfold over three decades (Banerjee & Hofmann, 2022, with definitional caveats). Patience without termination is not patience; it is life support for incumbency — a lesson Section 7 turns into design. Friction Evidence Design implication Capital as internal political currency Rent-seeking cross-subsidy (Scharfstein & Stein, 2000); sibling-cash-flow allocation (Shin & Stulz, 1998); reputation and anchoring in practice (Graham et al., 2015) Redefinition cannot win the ordinary budget contest; requires ringfenced allocation and direct control rights Organizational-capacity rationing Hurdle rates ≈ 2× WACC, sticky, rationing attention not funds (Jagannathan et al., 2016) Cheaper capital does not buy redefinition; capacity expansion does Replacement effect Incumbent's rent increment < entrant's full rent (Aghion & Howitt, 1992) Internal redefinition needs compensating structures or it migrates to entrants Cognitive/architectural inertia Architecture mirrors product (Henderson & Clark, 1990); Polaroid's model cognition (Tripsas & Gavetti, 2000) Failure is organizational, not informational; disclosure alone insufficient Irreversibility under uncertainty Low redeployability amplifies uncertaintyinduced investment cuts (Kim & Kung, 2017) Uncertainty freezes exactly the firms whose definitions are most at risk Forbearing finance Zombie lending congestion (Caballero et al., 2008); rising zombie shares (Banerjee & Hofmann, 2022) Patience requires termination options; Section 7 Kadowaki — Redefinition Capitalism VURA Capital Innovation Working Paper Series 14 TABLE 3. The stickiness inventory. The frictions are political, cognitive, and structural as well as informational — which is why RCap's Condition 1 (legibility) is necessary but not sufficient, and Conditions 2–3 exist. 5.4 Propositions 4–6 Proposition 4 — Selection under margin compression. As AI diffusion compresses execution margins in a sector, the dispersion of long-horizon returns between firms that redefine outputs and firms that optimize existing execution widens, and exit and turnover concentrate among the latter. This is the sixth paper's selection sketch stated as a testable claim; its speed is governed by the frictions of this section, and its direction of capital learning is conditional on legibility (Condition 1) — without measurement, realized selection is attributed to luck and scale, and capital concentrates on superstars rather than on capacity. Falsification condition. Stable or narrowing return dispersion between redefiners and efficiencyoptimizers under deep sectoral AI diffusion; or exit rates uncorrelated with redefinition indicators fixed ex ante. Proposition 5 — Structural protection, not information, moderates internal allocation. Within firms, the probability that a self-cannibalizing redefinition project is funded and sustained is predicted by structural protection — ring-fenced budgets, direct senior control rights, separated governance — and not by the quality of information available to the allocating executives; among equally informed firms, those lacking protection exhibit the replacement-effect and budget-politics patterns of Sections 5.1–5.2. Falsification condition. Funding and survival of self-cannibalizing projects tracking information quality rather than structural protection in designs that can separate them; or protected and unprotected projects surviving at equal rates. Proposition 6 — Organizational capacity, not capital cost, is the binding constraint. Redefinition investment responds to expansions of organizational and cognitive capacity (the brain-capital margin of Kadowaki, 2026e) and is approximately unresponsive to reductions in the cost of financial capital; hurdle-rate premia over WACC proxy the shadow price of that capacity and predict redefinition backlogs. Falsification condition. Redefinition investment responding strongly to exogenous financingcost shocks while unresponsive to capacity shocks; or hurdle premia uncorrelated with organizational-capacity measures. 6. Four Complements, Not Four Capitals 6.1 The objections come first The series' public program speaks of a "fusion" of financial, intellectual, human, and social capital. An academic paper cannot speak that way until it has answered three standing objections. Solow's: if social capital is capital, name its stock, its rate of return, and its Kadowaki — Redefinition Capitalism VURA Capital Innovation Working Paper Series 15 depreciation — otherwise it is "an attempt to gain conviction from a bad analogy" (Solow, 1995, 2000). Durlauf's: empirical social-capital research conflates trust, networks, and norms, and its cross-country regressions cannot carry identification (Durlauf, 2002). Hodgson's: promiscuous "capitals" strip the term of its meaning — most of what is so labeled is neither alienable nor collateralizable (Hodgson, 2014). And the institutional precedent is discouraging: the six-capitals integrated-reporting framework is judged in the critical accounting literature to have substituted capital-talk for measurement (Flower, 2015). This paper's response, built into Definition 4, is demotion: nothing in the model requires the four inputs to be capitals — it requires them to be complements. What survives demotion is what can be defended. 6.2 What complementarity rigorously establishes The rigorous substitute for "fusion" is supermodularity: when activities are Edgeworth complements, returns to raising one input increase in the levels of the others, optimal configurations move in clusters, and partial imitation of a complementary system is penalized (Milgrom & Roberts, 1990, 1995). The empirical record identifies exactly the pairs and triples the series needs: information technology, decentralized work organization, and human capital are pairwise complements whose three-way cluster predicts productivity (Bresnahan, Brynjolfsson, & Hitt, 2002); the same technology yields different returns depending on co-invested organizational practice — United States multinationals extract more output per unit of IT than others operating in the same country (Bloom, Sadun, & Van Reenen, 2012). The measurement caution is also part of the record: clustering of practices is not proof of complementarity, and the econometrics of supermodularity is hard (Brynjolfsson & Milgrom, 2013). Two concessions are therefore made — the first in the definition itself: the four-way cross-partial has never been estimated; the second here: the financial margin is nearly absent from the identified evidence. What the paper asserts is the disciplined minimum: three of the four complementarities are identified at the firm level; the system logic (clusters, penalties to partial adoption) is theory with strong indirect support; and the multiplicative decision rule follows from supermodularity without requiring estimation. 6.3 Trust, held to the Durlauf standard The social variable earns its place only under discipline. The defensible core: trust correlates with growth across countries (Knack & Keefer, 1997 — with the finding, inconvenient for loose usage, that associational activity does not); trust predicts the prevalence and performance of large organizations, the mechanism nearest this paper's — trust economizes on monitoring at scales beyond kinship (La Porta, Lopez-de-Silanes, Shleifer, & Vishny, 1997); and the best causal design, inherited trust of migrants' descendants as an instrument, attributes substantial income differences to trust as a slow, generationally transmitted variable (Algan & Cahuc, 2010). The construct that survives Solow is "civic capital" — persistent shared values sustaining cooperation, deliberately rebuilt to have stock-like properties (Guiso, Sapienza, & Zingales, 2011). What does not survive is any direct evidence linking societal trust to AI adoption or delegation: none exists Kadowaki — Redefinition Capitalism VURA Capital Innovation Working Paper Series 16 at the macro level, only individual-level trust-in-automation research and cross-country survey compilations that are grey (Lee & See, 2004; Gillespie et al., 2023, grey). The paper therefore states the trust–AI link as a derived hypothesis, never as a finding. 6.4 The bottleneck theorem, and what AI abundance does to scarcity The macro payoff of complementarity is not a growth bonus; it is a redirection of scarcity. With poor substitutability between tasks or inputs, growth is governed by the essential components that are hardest to improve — Baumol's cost disease generalized: automation makes the non-automated complement the binding constraint (Aghion, Jones, & Jones, 2019). Mapped onto Definition 4: as AI makes intellectual capital abundant and cheap, the system's growth rate comes to be governed by the slow variables — human absorption capacity, which the fifth paper's evidence shows is preserved only under deliberate design, and civic trust, which the inheritance evidence shows moves generationally. The counterintuitive implication, stated as Proposition 7, is that AI abundance raises the marginal value of exactly the complements the four-capital program names — not because "people matter" as rhetoric, but because an elasticity of substitution below one (σ < 1) makes bottlenecks sovereign. And complement-building has a measurable macro signature: while intangible complements to a general-purpose technology are being built, measured TFP is understated, then overstated as the hidden stock yields services — the productivity J-curve (Brynjolfsson, Rock, & Syverson, 2021), which gives the framework a falsifiable aggregate implication despite its refusal of estimation. The expected lag structure should be stated for testers: firm-level returns to organizational and training complements typically surface over two-to-five-year horizons in the complementarity evidence, while the aggregate J-curve for a general-purpose technology plays out over longer spans; Proposition 8's trough-to-recovery interval is therefore predicted in years — roughly two to five at the firm level, longer in aggregate — and quarterly-frequency nulls are uninformative about it. FINANCIAL allocative; abundant INTELLECTUAL / AI nonrival; being commoditized HUMAN / BRAIN slow; absorption-limited SOCIAL / TRUST inherited; generational SUPERMODULAR SYSTEM — not a production function positive cross-partials; clustered adoption; partial imitation penalized (Milgrom & Roberts, 1990; Bresnahan et al., 2002; Bloom et al., 2012) BOTTLENECK THEOREM (Aghion, Jones, & Jones, 2019): with σ < 1, growth is governed by the scarcest complement — AI abundance RAISES the marginal value of the slow variables Derived hypothesis, untested at the four-way level: no study estimates the four-way cross-partial (Section 6.4). Kadowaki — Redefinition Capitalism VURA Capital Innovation Working Paper Series 17 FIGURE 3. The four-complement system. The formal content is supermodularity plus the bottleneck theorem; the four-way cross-partial is unestimated, and the figure's arrows are theory, not measurement. 6.5 Propositions 7–8 Proposition 7 — The bottleneck shift. Where the four complements exhibit poor substitutability, the returns to AI investment are governed by the level of the scarcest complement: firms and jurisdictions with higher human absorption capacity and higher civic trust extract systematically larger value from equal AI capability, and the gap widens as AI capability grows. Derived from Aghion, Jones, and Jones (2019) plus the complementarity evidence; the trust margin is untested and flagged as such. Falsification condition. Returns to AI adoption uncorrelated with ex-ante complement levels (absorption capacity, trust, organizational practice) under deep diffusion; or the AI-return gap between high- and low-complement environments narrowing as capability grows. Proposition 8 — The J-curve signature of complement-building. Firms and economies investing heavily in unmeasured complements to AI (organizational redesign, training, trust infrastructure) exhibit the productivity J-curve: measured TFP understatement during the buildout, followed by recovery and overstatement as the intangible stock yields services. The signature — not a production-function estimate — is the framework's aggregate test. Falsification condition. No systematic TFP-mismeasurement pattern associated with complement investment intensity; or productivity effects contemporaneous with AI adoption regardless of complement investment (no buildout dynamics). 7. The Governance of Time: Patience as a Complement with a Decay Function 7.1 The decay evidence comes first The series' observational core — sustained redefinition co-occurring with structural timedefense (Kadowaki, 2026d) — could be read as a brief for unconditional protection. Governance theory states the objection at its strongest: structures that insulate managers from market pressure are the classic engine of agency costs — entrenchment, empire building, the consumption of slack (Jensen & Meckling, 1976) — and a manager claiming to "defend time for redefinition" is observationally indistinct, from outside, from a manager defending a sinecure. The section's organizing rule follows directly and is worth stating before the evidence: protection without a retained termination option degrades into agency cost; the entire design question is how to keep the termination option alive without reimporting the interface myopia of Section 3. The capital-structure evidence forbids the unconditional reading. Dual-class share structures, the purest institutionalization of defended time, exhibit a valuation lifecycle: a premium around IPO relative to matched single-class firms that dissipates and tends to reverse into a discount within roughly six to Kadowaki — Redefinition Capitalism VURA Capital Innovation Working Paper Series 18 nine years, driven by the wedge between voting and cash-flow rights (Cremers, Lauterbach, & Pajuste, 2024); the theoretical case for time-based sunsets follows directly — the controller's incentive to relinquish protection does not track its decaying value (Bebchuk & Kastiel, 2017), against which stands the private-ordering objection that uniform sunsets ignore heterogeneity (Sharfman, 2019). Announcing long-termism without structure fares worse: firms that stop quarterly guidance are disproportionately poor performers, suffer negative announcement returns, and show no subsequent increase in long-term investment — silence pools with hiding (Chen, Matsumoto, & Rajgopal, 2011; Houston, Lev, & Tucker, 2010). The founder letter that famously refused guidance succeeded by bundling the refusal with control, disclosed strategy, and observable growth — credibility borrowed, not generated. And patience without termination becomes forbearance: the main-bank relationships that once smoothed investment through distress (Hoshi, Kashyap, & Scharfstein, 1991) matured into the zombie lending of Section 5.3. Family and foundation ownership complete the conditional picture: founding-family firms outperform only under founder or outside-professional leadership, and instrumented heir succession causes roughly a four-percentage-point decline in operating profitability (Anderson & Reeb, 2003; Bennedsen, Nielsen, Pérez-González, & Wolfenzon, 2007); perpetual foundation ownership is compatible with competitiveness — stable, conservative, surviving — but shows no dynamism premium (Thomsen, Poulsen, Børsting, & Kuhn, 2018); and century-old firms manage the tension between revered pasts and strategic change by reinterpretation, not by protection alone (Sasaki, Kotlar, Ravasi, & Vaara, 2020). 7.2 The existence proof: unbundled patience Venture contracting shows that protection and accountability can be combined rather than traded. The theory: optimal contracts for exploration require tolerance for early failure plus reward for long-term success — pay-for-performance kills experimentation; protection without the long-term convex claim kills discipline (Manso, 2011). The evidence: failuretolerant venture investors produce more innovative portfolio companies, with effects strongest where failure risk is highest (Tian & Wang, 2014); researchers funded on long cycles with people-not-projects evaluation produce more breakthroughs and more flops — the signature of genuine exploration — than matched short-cycle grantees (Azoulay, Graff Zivin, & Manso, 2011); and the patient fund structure disciplines through staging, releasing capital in tranches whose frequency rises with agency risk while always retaining the termination option (Gompers, 1995). The horizon side of the market matches: patience pays only in conjunction with conviction — high active share and long holding duration outperform; patience alone earns nothing (Cremers & Pareek, 2016) — and long-horizon owners function as governance infrastructure, reducing misconduct and value-destroying acquisitions (Harford, Kecskés, & Mansi, 2018). System-level finance agrees with the convexity logic: equity-market development predicts innovation in high-tech industries where credit development does not — the radical project is financed by the convex claim, not by patient debt (Hsu, Tian, & Xu, 2014; Brown, Fazzari, & Petersen, 2009). One political-economy condition must be stated for the configuration to travel from private to public markets. The Manso contract's first feature — tolerance for early failure — is Kadowaki — Redefinition Capitalism VURA Capital Innovation Working Paper Series 19 exactly what activist investors target: an early stumble under a tolerant board reads, from outside, as lax governance, and the activism record shows such interventions are common and contested (Bebchuk, Brav, & Jiang, 2015; deHaan, Larcker, & McClure, 2019). In public equity, therefore, the Manso configuration is not self-sustaining: it survives only in conjunction with the time-defense structures of this section — renewal-contingent dualclass terms, anchor ownership, long-horizon investor compacts — which function as the shield behind which failure tolerance can be contracted at all.
The two governance devices are complements, not alternatives; Proposition 10 should be read with that conjunction built in, and the venture-capital existence proof is, in part, a statement about where the shield comes free: private ownership supplies structurally what public firms must construct. Mechanism Evidence Conditional lesson Dual-class protection IPO premium → discount in ~6–9 yrs (Cremers et al., 2024); sunset theory (Bebchuk & Kastiel, 2017) Protection has a decay function; renewal-contingency is the design answer Guidance cessation Negative returns, no investment increase (Chen et al., 2011; Houston et al., 2010) Announced long-termism pools with hiding; structure must be costly Relationship banking Smooths distress investment (Hoshi et al., 1991) → zombie forbearance (Caballero et al., 2008) Patience without termination is life support Family/foundation ownership Founder/professional premium; heir succession −4pp OROA (Anderson & Reeb, 2003; Bennedsen et al., 2007); foundations stable, not dynamic (Thomsen et al., 2018) Time-defense that doubles as a nepotism channel destroys value Venture configuration Failure tolerance + convex long-run reward + staging (Manso, 2011; Tian & Wang, 2014; Azoulay et al., 2011; Gompers, 1995) The existence proof: protection and accountability contractually combined Owner horizon Patience × conviction outperforms (Cremers & Pareek, 2016); long-term owners as governance (Harford et al., 2018) Patience is a complement to capacity on the investor side too TABLE 4. The governance of time, conditionally. Every mechanism that defends time creates value in conjunction with capacity and destroys it as a shield for incompetence; the governance problem is telling the two apart — an information problem, returning the argument to Section 8. Kadowaki — Redefinition Capitalism VURA Capital Innovation Working Paper Series 20 FIGURE 4. The protection–accountability design space. Value concentrates where early-failure tolerance is combined with retained termination options; the off-diagonal quadrants are the documented failure modes. 7.3 Propositions 9–10 Proposition 9 — Conditional patience with decay. Time-defense mechanisms (dual-class structures, anchor ownership, protected mandates) create value only in conjunction with demonstrated capacity renewal, and their value decays toward entrenchment discount on an observable schedule absent renewal. Renewalcontingent designs — sunsets with reapproval, staged protection — dominate both perpetual protection and no protection for redefinition outcomes. Falsification condition. Protection value independent of renewal indicators; or perpetualprotection firms matching renewal-contingent firms in long-horizon redefinition outcomes; or no lifecycle decay in protected-firm valuations. Proposition 10 — The Manso configuration dominates. Allocation regimes combining (i) tolerance for early failure, (ii) long-horizon convex rewards, and (iii) staged funding with retained termination options produce more redefinition — measured as new option-set creation and survival through transitions — than either quarterly-optimized regimes or unconditionally patient regimes, at both firm and financial-system levels. Falsification condition. Quarterly-optimized or unconditionally patient regimes matching the three-feature configuration on redefinition outcomes in designs that hold capacity constant; or any one of the three features proving sufficient alone. Termination option retained → yes Early-failure tolerance → high UNCONDITIONAL PATIENCE forbearance; zombie credit; dual-class value decays into discount (Cremers et al., 2024) THE MANSO CONFIGURATION protected experimentation + staged funding + retained termination; the configuration P10 predicts to win RITUAL LONG-TERMISM guidance cessation pools with hiders; negative announcement returns (Chen et al., 2011; Houston et al., 2010) QUARTERLY OPTIMIZATION earnings-sensitive incentives × unobservable assets → myopia at the interface (§3) Defended time is a complement to capacity, with a decay function. Evidence: Manso (2011); Tian & Wang (2014); Azoulay et al. (2011); Gompers (1995); Cremers, Lauterbach, & Pajuste (2024); Caballero, Hoshi, & Kashyap (2008). Kadowaki — Redefinition Capitalism VURA Capital Innovation Working Paper Series 21 8. Making the Generator Legible: Design Against the ESG Precedent 8.1 What disclosure theory promises, and under what conditions The theoretical chain is well built. Costless verifiable disclosure unravels toward full revelation (Grossman, 1981; Milgrom, 1981); proprietary costs break the unraveling and produce threshold equilibria in which silence is not fully punished (Verrecchia, 1983); disclosure that reduces information asymmetry improves liquidity and can lower the cost of capital through the large-investor channel (Diamond & Verrecchia, 1991) and, nondiversifiably, by changing assessed covariances (Lambert, Leuz, & Verrecchia, 2007). The empirical record is conditional, not general: cost-of-equity effects concentrate in lowanalyst-following firms — on the order of tens of basis points (Botosan, 1997) — liquidity gains follow credible regime switches (Leuz & Verrecchia, 2000), and the authoritative review finds causal evidence "relatively rare," entangled with self-selection and enforcement (Leuz & Wysocki, 2016). This is the honest ceiling for anything Section 8 proposes: an information-channel prize, tens of basis points, concentrated where asymmetry is worst — not a repricing bonanza. One decomposition must be kept exact, because a loose reading of "lower cost of capital" inverts finance. A firm's required return has two components relevant here: an estimationrisk and information component — the wedge investors charge for not being able to assess the firm's cash-flow covariances, which credible disclosure reduces (Lambert, Leuz, & Verrecchia, 2007) — and the fundamental risk premium of the activity itself. Redefinition is a risky activity: it dismantles settled models, and the organization capital it runs on carries a documented premium of roughly 4.6 percent per year precisely because its value can walk (Eisfeldt & Papanikolaou, 2013). Nothing in this paper claims that verified redefiners become low-risk borrowers; the standard prediction runs the other way. What legibility removes is the estimation wedge — mispricing, not risk — so the honest promise is a valuation correction (prices aligned with expected cash flows and true covariances) plus a reduction of tens of basis points in the information component for high-asymmetry firms, while the fundamental premium on redefinition activity remains, and may rationally rise as the activity's true risk becomes visible. Proposition 11 is stated in these terms. 8.2 The ESG postmortem: four separation conditions, all failed The ESG episode is the natural experiment in what happens when a repricing program precedes its measurement discipline, and this paper treats it as a design course, not a target of scorn. The construct was never standardized: ratings from six major providers correlate at 0.38 to 0.71, averaging 0.54, with measurement divergence the dominant driver (Berg, Kölbel, & Rigobon, 2022; Chatterji, Durand, Levine, & Touboul, 2016). Disclosure amplified rather than resolved disagreement: moving from the 25th to the 75th percentile of ESG disclosure is associated with a 22–31 percent increase in rater disagreement, worst for outcome metrics (Christensen, Serafeim, & Sikochi, 2022). Labels screened nobody: roughly 86 percent of eventual Article 9 funds under the EU's disclosure regulation had pre-existing sustainability mandates — relabeling, not reallocation — and flows barely responded until Kadowaki — Redefinition Capitalism VURA Capital Innovation Working Paper Series 22 categories were translated into plain language (Allcott, Egan, Smeets, & Yang, 2026, working paper); self-labeled ESG funds held portfolio firms with more violations and higher emissions than their own managers' conventional funds, with scores tracking disclosure volume rather than conduct (Raghunandan & Rajgopal, 2022). And the pricing prize was mis-sold: the taste channel moves cost of capital by basis points — 0.44 under realistic parameters (Berk & van Binsbergen, 2025), approximately zero in the tightest matchedbond design (Larcker & Watts, 2020) — while the celebrated green outperformance of the 2010s decomposes into unexpected taste shocks, not durable expected returns (Pástor, Stambaugh, & Taylor, 2021, 2022); even the sign of the carbon premium flips with construct definition (Bolton & Kacperczyk, 2021; Aswani, Raghunandan, & Rajgopal, 2024). Separation condition How ESG failed it Design answer for capacity disclosure Standardized construct Rater correlations 0.38–0.71; conceptual divergence (Berg et al., 2022; Chatterji et al., 2016) Closed list of mechanism facts with fixed measurement rules (8.3) Verifiable content Scores tracked disclosure volume, not conduct (Raghunandan & Rajgopal, 2022); disagreement rose with disclosure (Christensen et al., 2022) Record-system quantities and process certification only; no outcome adjectives Differential imitation cost (single-crossing) 86% costless relabeling under SFDR (Allcott et al., 2026, WP) Tiers occupied only by binding structures: locked capital, sunset terms, staged self-commitments (Spence, 1973) Ex-post confirmation loop No record system ever settled a sustainability claim Forward claims settled against audited later records — the confirmation hypothesis (Ball, Jayaraman, & Shivakumar, 2012) TABLE 5. The ESG episode as a clean natural experiment in pooling. Every separation condition failed simultaneously; the design column states what a redefinition-capacity disclosure must do differently. 8.3 The capacity-disclosure architecture The design follows from the failures, and it inherits the three-tier logic of the fifth paper's disclosure architecture, now with its capital-market rationale explicit. Disclose mechanisms, never strategy content: Verrecchia's proprietary-cost logic predicts that the best redefiners rationally stay silent about what they will become; the architecture therefore solicits only commitment structures — time-defense terms and their sunset schedules, staged self-commitment milestones, ring-fencing contracts, halt and renewal provisions — which are competitively insensitive while being exactly the objects Propositions 5, 9, and 10 make predictive. This architecture-versus-content boundary is also the answer to the adverse-selection objection: because what is disclosed is the governance type — procedures, commitments, structures — and never the strategic content those procedures will produce, the proprietary cost of disclosure approaches zero, and the Verrecchia threshold that would otherwise keep the best redefiners silent does not bind; a rival learns that the firm has ring-fenced capital and staged milestones, not what the firm intends to become. Anchor in records or certify the process: quantities drawn from Kadowaki — Redefinition Capitalism VURA Capital Innovation Working Paper Series 23 systems of record (capital locked, mandates protected, milestones dated) or third-party process certification for what leaves no record trace — never self-assessed outcomes, which are where disagreement concentrates. The record-anchoring rule is also the cost-benefit answer: because admitted quantities come from systems the firm already operates for personnel, legal, and financial purposes, the marginal measurement cost is low, and the expensive instrument — process certification — is reserved for the few structures that leave no record trace; a disclosure regime whose compliance cost exceeded its information benefit would be deadweight loss by the standard the review literature applies (Leuz & Wysocki, 2016), and the architecture is designed against that test, not merely audited by it after the fact. Settle ex post: every forward commitment carries a dated confirmation point at which audited reporting confirms or falsifies it, taxing exaggeration through the mechanism Ball, Jayaraman, and Shivakumar (2012) document. Price the screen, not only the signal: binding structures are unattractive to transient capital regardless of what they signal — the clientele evidence (Bushee, 2001; Bushee & Noe, 2000, with its warning that disclosure per se can attract exactly the transient owners the design means to repel) implies the mechanism disclosure reshapes the ownership base directly, which announced longtermism demonstrably does not (Section 7.1). The valuation instrument the series' public program calls a future-value index is, under this architecture, a scoring of mechanism disclosures against confirmation records — and it is presented here as an unbuilt design proposal, under two disciplines carried from the sixth paper. It inherits the eight index-design constraints of Kadowaki (2026f, §9.2) — theory before aggregation, mandatory sensitivity analysis, behavioral triangulation, Goodhart resistance, capacity and performance never summed, and the rest — and it inherits the conflict-of-interest treatment: the author's firm aspires to build such an instrument, which is precisely why this paper specifies the conditions under which any such instrument would be trustworthy rather than announcing one (Section 11). The design is deliberately an open standard: any party satisfying the admission rules — established rating and index providers, standard setters, academic consortia — can build a conforming instrument, and the framework's success would be indicated by a plurality of independent conforming instruments whose scores agree, not by the adoption of any proprietary one. 8.4 Regime dependence: the stranding demonstration One body of evidence demonstrates, at scale, that what counts as capital is regimedependent: under a two-degree constraint, a third of oil reserves, half of gas, and over eighty percent of coal become unburnable — assets reclassified toward liabilities by a valuation regime shift (McGlade & Ekins, 2015; Caldecott, 2017). The stranded-assets record is this paper's cleanest exhibit of the economic reality of what Λ names, in the only sense that matters: when regimes move, the firms that survive are not those with the largest A but those able to re-derive value from a redefined domain — an ex-post trace of a capacity the paper elsewhere insists is ex-ante unobservable. The planetary boundary condition carried from the sixth paper therefore enters RCap not as ethics appended to finance but as the largest scheduled regime shift on the books — and the capacity to absorb it is exactly the generator this paper's architecture would make legible. Kadowaki — Redefinition Capitalism VURA Capital Innovation Working Paper Series 24 8.5 Propositions 11–13 Proposition 11 — Separation conditions for capacity disclosure. Disclosure of contractual mechanism facts (time-defense terms, staged self-commitments, renewal records), anchored in records or process certification with dated ex-post settlement, produces a separating equilibrium: disclosing and non-disclosing firms diverge in subsequent redefinition outcomes, rater disagreement over disclosed content is low, and the information component of required returns falls by tens of basis points in highasymmetry firms — a valuation correction, per the decomposition of Section 8.1, with the fundamental risk premium of redefinition activity unreduced and possibly rising as its true risk becomes visible. Narrative and outcome-based disclosure of the same construct pools: disagreement rises with disclosure volume and no information-component effect obtains. Falsification condition. Mechanism-based disclosure generating rating disagreement comparable to outcome-based disclosure; or no outcome divergence between mechanismdisclosers and non-disclosers; or cost-of-capital effects absent in high-asymmetry firms under verified mechanism disclosure. Proposition 12 — Screening, not signaling. Binding mechanism structures reshape the ownership base — reducing transient-institution share and increasing dedicated-owner share — independently of any signaling content, because they are costly to transient strategies by construction; announced long-termism without binding structure (guidance cessation, narrative commitment) produces no clientele shift and pools with concealment. Falsification condition. No differential clientele evolution between firms adopting binding structures and firms making equivalent announcements without structures; or announcementonly firms achieving equal transient-share reductions. Proposition 13 — Stranding losses and the generator. Across regime shifts that reclassify assets (carbon constraints being the largest scheduled case), realized stranding losses are inversely related to ex-ante generator indicators: firms with verified redefinition mechanisms re-derive value from redefined domains at systematically higher rates, and regimes that make stranding legible in advance accelerate the selection dynamics of Proposition 4. Falsification condition. Stranding losses uncorrelated with ex-ante mechanism indicators; or legibility of stranding having no effect on the pace of capital reallocation across the shift. 9. The Regime, Assembled 9.1 Three conditions, one binding constraint Definition 5's three conditions can now be read against the evidence that motivated them. Condition 1 — legibility — is binding because every other mechanism routes through it: the selection dynamics of Proposition 4 mislabel winners as lucky superstars without it; the conditional patience of Proposition 9 cannot be distinguished from entrenchment without Kadowaki — Redefinition Capitalism VURA Capital Innovation Working Paper Series 25 it; the internal protection of Proposition 5 cannot be priced by outside capital without it; and Section 2's frontier logic says the market will do the rest once and only once the trace exists. Condition 2 — renewal-contingent time defense — is what the decay evidence demands: a regime of perpetual protection reproduces zombie forbearance at the economy scale, and a regime of no protection reproduces the interface myopia of Section 3. Condition 3 — bottleneck-oriented allocation — is the complementarity result made policy: an economy that allocates to the measurable complement (AI capability, now abundant) while starving the slow ones (absorption capacity, trust) is optimizing the non-binding margin, and its returns to AI will disappoint on schedule (Proposition 7; the productivity Jcurve says the disappointment will first be mismeasured as technological failure, Proposition 8). The macro caution deserves its own paragraph, because the paper's aggregate optimism is conditional and the skeptics are partly right. The Solow (1987) paradox — technology everywhere but in the productivity statistics — was resolved only after complements were built and diffused, and the most careful current estimate of AI's aggregate effect is deliberately modest: total factor productivity gains of roughly 0.5 to 0.7 percent cumulatively over a decade from task-level automation alone (Acemoglu, 2025). This paper does not dispute that estimate; it relocates its scope. Task-level automation is the execution channel, and RCap's claim is that the aggregate payoff is nonlinear in the redefinition rate — the share of firms that convert AI's execution abundance into redefined outputs, new option sets, and reallocated capital — not in adoption intensity. An economy can therefore run the full Acemoglu scenario (deep adoption, thin TFP) simply by adopting without redefining, which is the counterfactual regime of Section 9.2; and the J-curve of Proposition 8 says the transition will look worst in the statistics precisely while the complements are being built. The scheduled resolution matters for testing: on the training-complement evidence the paper inherits (returns to complement investment appearing over two-to-three-year horizons) and the general-purpose-technology record (longer), the trough-to-recovery lag should be measured in years, not quarters — a point Proposition 8's testing entry now carries explicitly. 9.2 What the regime would look like in data A regime transition toward RCap is observable, which is what makes the construct scientific rather than hortatory. The observable implications, in rough order of arrival: mechanismdisclosure adoption and the clientele shifts of Proposition 12; rater agreement on mechanism content where ESG-style constructs diverged (Proposition 11); widening return dispersion between redefiners and efficiency-optimizers in AI-compressed sectors, with exit concentrating among the latter (Proposition 4); reallocation statistics — entry, high-growth young firms, dispersion-driven TFP contributions — recovering against the documented dynamism decline (Decker et al., 2017); the closing-alpha trajectory on capacity measures themselves as they diffuse (Proposition 1); and, at the slowest frequency, the J-curve signature resolving into measured productivity (Proposition 8). The counterfactual regime — AI diffusion without Condition 1 — has its own signature, already partly visible: margin Kadowaki — Redefinition Capitalism VURA Capital Innovation Working Paper Series 26 compression plus superstar concentration plus stagnant entry, the sixth paper's bifurcation extended to the capital account. Regime condition Failure mode if absent Observable implication if present 1. Legibility (Section 8) Selection mislabeled as luck/scale; capital concentrates on superstars; boilerplate pooling (ESG pattern) Mechanism-rater agreement; clientele shifts; tens-of-bp cost-ofcapital effects in high-asymmetry firms 2. Renewal-contingent time defense (Section 7) Either interface myopia (no protection) or zombie forbearance and dual-class decay (perpetual protection) Lifecycle discounts shrink for renewal-contingent structures; Manso-configuration adoption 3. Bottleneck-oriented allocation (Section 6) Investment in the abundant complement; disappointing AI returns mismeasured as technological failure Complement investment tracked; Jcurve resolution; AI returns correlated with slow-variable levels TABLE 6. The regime conditions as failure modes and observables. RCap is defined by what would be seen, not by what would be believed. 9.3 Proposition 14 Proposition 14 — Conditional emergence. In sectors and jurisdictions where AI margin compression coincides with operating capacity-legibility infrastructure (Condition 1), capital reallocates measurably toward verified-generator firms — entry, funding shares, and valuation spreads move with mechanism indicators — while in equally compressed sectors without such infrastructure, the same competitive pressure produces superstar concentration and stagnant entry instead. The regime, in short, is not an era that arrives; it is a contingency that is built — and the contrast between infrastructure-bearing and infrastructure-free environments is its natural experiment. Falsification condition. Capital reallocation toward verified-generator firms failing to materialize where compression and legibility coincide; or materializing equally without legibility infrastructure (which would show the measurement architecture is redundant and the selection sketch operates unconditionally). 10. The Series, the Testing Map, and the Implications 10.1 Epistemic boundaries and citation positioning The citation discipline of the fifth and sixth papers carries over unchanged. Kadowaki (2026a, 2026b) are axiomatic foundations: the value axiom and the five-dimensional capability framework; nothing here tests them and nothing here is evidence for them. Kadowaki (2026c) is a design proposal whose role-level mechanisms appear here only as candidate mechanism disclosures. Kadowaki (2026d) carries observational weight at exactly two points: the time-defense co-occurrence (eighteen focal cases plus a fiveenterprise non-matched contrast set — twenty-three enterprises in total; working-paper status), which Sections 7 and 8 elevate to design hypotheses; and the observationasymmetry count (27 of 90 cells indeterminable), which Definition 2 inherits as direct Kadowaki — Redefinition Capitalism VURA Capital Innovation Working Paper Series 27 observation of disclosure, not of capacity. Kadowaki (2026e) supplies constructs (the cognitive base, the three-tier disclosure logic) used here as design inputs; Kadowaki (2026f) supplies the societal frame, the index-design constraints, and the selection sketch this paper conditionalizes. No proposition here depends for its truth on any claim unique to the series; the propositions rest on the external literatures of Sections 2 through 8, and the series contributes constructs and hypotheses, not evidence. As before, "proposition" is used in the Popperian sense — falsifiable hypothesis with stated kill conditions, not theorem — and the derivation column of Table 7 makes each basis explicit, with design-derived entries marked. 10.2 The testing map Table 7 states, for each proposition: the unit of analysis; the horizon over which effects should become observable — short (one to two years), medium (two to five years; organizational and market adoption), or long (five to ten years and beyond; regime reequilibration) — the mode of derivation; and a first test design. Early nulls at the wrong horizon are not falsification, nor an escape from it.
P Unit Horizon Derivation Suggested first test (variables; data type) 1 Market Medium Evidence synthesis Event-time alpha decay around standardization/ diffusion of intangible measures; factor libraries + measure-diffusion dates 2 Firm Short Evidence synthesis Myopia indicators (forecast-discontinuity R&D, vesting-timed cuts) × incentive horizon × asset observability; compensation and investment panels 3 Firm/market Long Design-derived Ex-ante mechanism indicators vs long-horizon outcomes, conditioning on total q and option intensity; requires the Section 8 architecture to exist 4 Sector Medium → long Theory transfer (2026f sketch) AI-diffusion sectors: return dispersion and exit by ex-ante redefinition indicators; registry and pricing data 5 Firm (internal) Short → medium Evidence synthesis Funding/survival of self-cannibalizing projects × structural protection × information quality; internal allocation records, matched designs 6 Firm Short Evidence synthesis Redefinition investment response to financingcost vs organizational-capacity shocks; hurdlepremium data (survey + quasi-experiments) 7 Firm/ jurisdiction Medium → long Theory transfer (AJJ) + design (trust margin) Returns to AI adoption × ex-ante complement levels (absorption, trust, practices); adoption panels × complement measures Kadowaki — Redefinition Capitalism VURA Capital Innovation Working Paper Series 28 8 Macro Long (troughtorecovery ≈ 2–5 yr at firm level; longer in aggregate, §6.4) Theory transfer (J-curve) TFP mismeasurement dynamics × complementinvestment intensity; intangible-adjusted growth accounting 9 Firm/ governance Medium → long Evidence synthesis Protection value × renewal indicators; dual-class lifecycle with renewal-contingency terms; governance panels 10 Firm/fund Medium Evidence synthesis Three-feature configuration vs quarterlyoptimized and unconditionally patient regimes; innovation and redefinition outcomes 11 Market Medium Design-derived Mechanism vs narrative disclosure: rater disagreement, outcome divergence, cost-ofcapital effects in high-asymmetry firms 12 Market Short → medium Evidence synthesis + design Clientele composition evolution after bindingstructure adoption vs announcement-only; institutional ownership classifications 13 Firm/regime Long Theory transfer (stranding) Stranding losses across carbon-regime shifts × ex-ante mechanism indicators; energy-sector panels 14 Sector/ jurisdiction Long Design-derived Difference-in-difference: compression × legibility infrastructure on reallocation, entry, valuation spreads TABLE 7. The testing map. Design-derived propositions are generated by the framework's own architecture and carry no evidential presumption; their numbered status rests solely on their stated falsification conditions. 10.3 Implications, sized honestly For managers, the implications repeat the earlier papers' with the capital rationale attached: redefinition initiatives lose the ordinary budget contest by construction (Proposition 5), so structural protection with staged self-commitment is a financing design, not administrative preference; and the transformation lever the evidence supports is capacity expansion, not cheaper capital (Proposition 6). For investors, the paper's counsel is a screen, not an alpha promise: mechanism indicators — renewal-contingent protection, staged commitments, confirmation records — identify where patience is a complement rather than a shield (Propositions 9–10), and any alpha they carry should decay on the schedule of Proposition 1 as measures diffuse. For standard setters — the securities regulators and sustainability boards now revising disclosure regimes — the ESG postmortem of Section 8.2 is the actionable content: solicit mechanism facts anchored in records, refuse outcome adjectives, and build the confirmation loop; the fifth paper's threetier architecture states the firm-level form, and the prize to advertise is honest — tens of basis points for opaque firms and a working selection mechanism, not a repricing of Kadowaki — Redefinition Capitalism VURA Capital Innovation Working Paper Series 29 everything. The Japanese context carried through this series remains apt: a jurisdiction with mandated human-capital disclosure, a governance code under revision, a standard setter actively aligning domestic sustainability standards with the ISSB baseline (the Sustainability Standards Board of Japan's inaugural standards provide the institutional vehicle into which mechanism-disclosure rules could be drafted), and a membership-type employment system facing the sharpest unbundling shock, has both the motive and the institutional machinery to build Condition 1 first. The first-mover objection — that unilateral disclosure mandates trigger regulatory arbitrage, with firms migrating listings toward laxer venues — is real and is answered in the design rather than denied: the counterforce is Proposition 12's clientele mechanism. A jurisdiction whose disclosure architecture verifiably separates redefiners becomes a screening venue for capital quality — the listing address that dedicated long-horizon investors can trust — so the competition it enters is not a race to the bottom on compliance cost but a race to attract the capital that pays for legibility; staged adoption (comply-or-explain first, mandatory tiers later) limits the transition exposure while the clientele advantage accumulates. With this paper the series closes its loop, and the closure can be stated in one sentence per layer. The first three papers gave the enterprise its object and its capability — what firms exist to create, the five dimensions along which they redefine themselves, and the observed structural signature of those that sustain it. The fourth and fifth freed the role and the mind — work defined by purpose rather than assigned procedure, and the cognitive base that purpose-defined work presupposes, with its absence from every disclosure regime documented. The sixth stated the societal configuration in which distributed authorship of value is institutionally possible. This seventh gives that whole architecture its economic circulation: a capital system able to distinguish the firm defending its past from the firm composing its future, and the measurement, governance, and allocation conditions under which capital, so informed, moves. The stack runs from a single mind's preserved capacity to the price system of an economy; each layer is falsifiable on its own terms; and no layer's truth is assumed by another — which is, in the end, the only architecture a series written under this one's disciplines could have permitted itself. 11. Limitations, Epistemic Status, and Conflicts of Interest 11.1 Information cutoff and version discipline Factual claims are stated as of mid-August 2026. Several load-bearing citations are working papers or forthcoming articles — the AI-repricing study (forthcoming, Journal of Finance), the SFDR evaluation (working paper), the dual-class lifecycle paper's companion literature — and the dual-class lifecycle magnitudes, the parameter-dependent figures of the impactinvesting calculation, and the Christensen disagreement percentages should be re-verified against final published versions before formal submission. The Kim and Michaely dualclass study is cited nowhere as published because it is not; the McKinsey allocation-inertia figures are cited as grey and carry no causal weight; and no transformation-success base rate appears anywhere in this paper because none citable exists. Kadowaki — Redefinition Capitalism VURA Capital Innovation Working Paper Series 30 11.2 What kind of paper this is, and five named weaknesses This is a theory paper assembling evidence generated for other questions; it reports no new data, estimates no model, and its propositions transfer findings across levels by argument. Five weaknesses deserve naming. First, Λ is defined residually and is currently unmeasurable; every test of Propositions 3, 11, and 14 requires the Section 8 architecture to exist first, which makes the paper's central construct unfalsifiable today — the testing map's honest reading is that roughly a third of the propositions (3, 11, and 14 in whole; 7 and 12 in their design margins) await their instrument. Second, the four-complement system's fourway cross-partial is unestimated, the financial margin nearly absent from the identified complementarity evidence, and the trust–AI link exists only as derived hypothesis; Proposition 7's trust margin could fail without damaging supermodularity among the other three, and the paper's macro chapter would survive in weakened form. Third, the selection mechanism (Propositions 4 and 14) is a conditional conjecture layered on verified frictions: no economy has run the experiment, and the counterfactual regime — compression without legibility producing concentration — fits the existing data, which means the theory currently explains the world by what is absent from it, an uncomfortable epistemic position the paper prefers to name rather than obscure. Fourth, the regime conditions interact in unmodeled ways: renewal-contingent protection (Condition 2) itself requires legibility (Condition 1) to adjudicate renewal, so the conditions are not independent and a formal model of their joint dynamics is future work, not present content. Fifth, the planetary boundary enters through the stranded-assets record only; the paper does not develop the ecological economics of admissible option sets, and Proposition 13 tests a correlate, not the boundary itself. 11.3 Conflict of interest The author founded VURA Capital Innovation Holdings, whose public program announced the "redefinition capitalism" concept, whose commercial services include enterpriseredefinition and organizational-transformation support, and whose stated aspirations include building a future-value index of the kind Section 8.3 describes. The conflict is therefore threefold: the paper theorizes a regime whose arrival would benefit the author's firm; it specifies a measurement instrument the firm aspires to operate; and its most attractive claims — that redefinition capacity is large, valuable, and identifiable — are the ones the firm sells against. The structural responses follow the series' practice. The two claims most valuable to the author receive the most restrictive treatment: the magnitude of Λ is declared unknown and its overstatement identified as the author's standing incentive (Definition 3's reading rule), and the index is presented as an unbuilt design bound by the eight constraints of the sixth paper and framed as an open standard — the admission rules are public, any conforming instrument by rating agencies, standard setters, or academic consortia serves the framework equally, and plurality-with-agreement among independent instruments, not adoption of a proprietary one, is the declared success criterion — with the explicit statement that any instrument built by an interested party fails the independence its own design requires: Condition 1, if it is ever met, should be met by parties with no stake in this series. The propositions nearest the firm's services (3, 5, 9, 10, 11) are stated for thirdKadowaki — Redefinition Capitalism VURA Capital Innovation Working Paper Series 31 party testing on instruments cited to independent literatures. The kill conditions are enumerated per proposition and, for the framework, in the falsification clause of Proposition 14, whose second branch — selection operating equally well without legibility infrastructure — would render the paper's central policy claim redundant. And the sisterpaper citations carry the weight classification of Section 10.1, under which no proposition rests evidentially on the author's prior work. 11.4 Evidence hygiene notes Four notes for the record. The buyback-decapitalization narrative is cited only as the position answered by the net-flows arithmetic; the practitioner article that popularized it is identified as non-peer-reviewed at use. The disruption-theory vocabulary is used only as mechanism description, with its predictive-validity critique cited alongside. The allocationinertia percentages from consulting research are labeled grey at every appearance and carry no proposition's weight. And the paper contains no citation to the fabricated AIproductivity preprint disavowed by its host institution in 2025; the series' standing exclusion continues. 12. Conclusion The story this paper set out to formalize is usually told as an indictment: capital is myopic, markets starve the future, and a better capitalism must overrule them. The evidence assembled here tells a stranger and more useful story. Markets pay richly for futures they cannot compose. They price every intangible that leaves a trace, reprice technological exposure within days, and value the option sets they can see with textbook coherence. The alpha on any nameable intangible closes as soon as someone builds its measure. What capital cannot do — what no participant can do — is distinguish the firm that will mint new options from the firm that merely holds old ones, because the generator of the option set leaves no standardized trace; and where that darkness meets earnings-sensitive incentives, managers verifiably consume the invisible assets first. The failure is not preference but architecture. Capitalism is not short-sighted; it is, at the exact margin that now matters most, unsighted. Redefinition Capitalism, as defined here, is the regime in which that margin is given eyes — and the paper's contribution is to specify how narrow the path is. The measurement architecture must solicit mechanism facts and refuse adjectives, because the one repricing program that skipped this discipline manufactured boilerplate at continental scale. The governance of time must be renewal-contingent, because protection decays into entrenchment on a documented schedule, and patience without a termination option is forbearance. Allocation must aim at the scarcest complement, because abundance in AI makes the slow variables — absorbed human capability, inherited trust — sovereign over returns. None of this arrives by era or announcement; Proposition 14 states the regime as a built contingency, observable in the difference between sectors that construct legibility and sectors that let compression run to concentration. Kadowaki — Redefinition Capitalism VURA Capital Innovation Working Paper Series 32 The series closes its loop here. A society in which people author the criteria of their own value — the sixth paper's configuration — requires enterprises capable of continuous redefinition, roles defined by purpose, minds with preserved capacity, and, beneath all of it, a capital system that can tell the difference between a firm defending its past and a firm composing its future. That last discrimination is what this paper has tried to make thinkable, testable, and buildable. The wager, stated with its conflicts on the table and its kill conditions enumerated: the economies that build the instruments to see redefinition capacity will find that capital, given eyes, does what capital has always done with new information — it moves. And where it moves, the age of artificial intelligence stops being a contest of execution, which machines have won, and becomes a market in futures worth choosing, which remains, on every page of evidence in this series, a human monopoly. References Working papers, official reports, grey literature, and practitioner sources are identified as such. Bibliographic details were verified against publisher records where possible; items pending final verification before formal submission are noted in Section 11.1. Acemoglu, D. (2025). The simple macroeconomics of AI. Economic Policy, 40(121), 13–58. Aghion, P., & Howitt, P. (1992). A model of growth through creative destruction. Econometrica, 60(2), 323–351. Aghion, P., Jones, B. F., & Jones, C. I. (2019). Artificial intelligence and economic growth. In A. Agrawal, J. Gans, & A. Goldfarb (Eds.), The economics of artificial intelligence: An agenda (pp. 237–282). University of Chicago Press. Algan, Y., & Cahuc, P. (2010). Inherited trust and growth. American Economic Review, 100(5), 2060–2092. Allcott, H., Egan, M., Smeets, P., & Yang, H. (2026). The limited effects of regulating greenwashing: Evidence from Europe's Sustainable Finance Disclosure Regulation. Working paper. Anderson, R. C., & Reeb, D. M. (2003). Founding-family ownership and firm performance: Evidence from the S&P 500. Journal of Finance, 58(3), 1301–1328. Asness, C. S., Hazelkorn, T. M., & Richardson, S. A. (2018). Buyback derangement syndrome. Journal of Portfolio Management, 44(5), 50–57. Aswani, J., Raghunandan, A., & Rajgopal, S. (2024). Are carbon emissions associated with stock returns? Review of Finance, 28(1), 75–106. Azoulay, P., Graff Zivin, J. S., & Manso, G. (2011). Incentives and creativity: Evidence from the academic life sciences. RAND Journal of Economics, 42(3), 527–554. Babina, T., Fedyk, A., He, A. X., & Hodson, J. (2024). Artificial intelligence, firm growth, and product innovation. Journal of Financial Economics, 151, 103745. Ball, R., Jayaraman, S., & Shivakumar, L. (2012). Audited financial reporting and voluntary disclosure as complements: A test of the confirmation hypothesis. Journal of Accounting and Economics, 53(1–2), 136–166. Banerjee, R., & Hofmann, B. (2022). Corporate zombies: Anatomy and life cycle. Economic Policy, 37(112), 757–803. Bansal, R., Miller, S., Song, D., & Yaron, A. (2021). The term structure of equity risk premia. Journal of Financial Economics, 142(3), 1209–1228. Barth, M. E., Li, K., & McClure, C. G. (2023). Evolution in value relevance of accounting information. The Accounting Review, 98(1), 1–28. Bebchuk, L. A., Brav, A., & Jiang, W. (2015). The long-term effects of hedge fund activism. Columbia Law Review, 115(5), 1085–1155. Kadowaki — Redefinition Capitalism VURA Capital Innovation Working Paper Series 33 Bebchuk, L. A., & Kastiel, K. (2017). The untenable case for perpetual dual-class stock. Virginia Law Review, 103(4), 585–630. Bennedsen, M., Nielsen, K. M., Pérez-González, F., & Wolfenzon, D. (2007). Inside the family firm: The role of families in succession decisions and performance. Quarterly Journal of Economics, 122(2), 647–691. Berg, F., Kölbel, J. F., & Rigobon, R. (2022). Aggregate confusion: The divergence of ESG ratings. Review of Finance, 26(6), 1315–1344. Berk, J. B., & van Binsbergen, J. H. (2025). The impact of impact investing. Journal of Financial Economics, 164, 103972. Bloom, N., Sadun, R., & Van Reenen, J. (2012). Americans do IT better: US multinationals and the productivity miracle. American Economic Review, 102(1), 167–201. Boguth, O., Carlson, M., Fisher, A., & Simutin, M. (2023). The term structure of equity risk premia: Levered noise and new estimates. Review of Finance, 27(4), 1155–1182. Bolton, P., & Kacperczyk, M. (2021). Do investors care about carbon risk? Journal of Financial Economics, 142(2), 517–549. Botosan, C. A. (1997). Disclosure level and the cost of equity capital. The Accounting Review, 72(3), 323– 349. Bresnahan, T. F., Brynjolfsson, E., & Hitt, L. M. (2002). Information technology, workplace organization, and the demand for skilled labor: Firm-level evidence. Quarterly Journal of Economics, 117(1), 339– 376. Brown, J. R., Fazzari, S. M., & Petersen, B. C. (2009). Financing innovation and growth: Cash flow, external equity, and the 1990s R&D boom. Journal of Finance, 64(1), 151–185. Brynjolfsson, E., & Milgrom, P. (2013). Complementarity in organizations. In R. Gibbons & J. Roberts (Eds.), The handbook of organizational economics (pp. 11–55). Princeton University Press. Brynjolfsson, E., Rock, D., & Syverson, C. (2021). The productivity J-curve: How intangibles complement general purpose technologies. American Economic Journal: Macroeconomics, 13(1), 333–372. Bushee, B. J. (1998). The influence of institutional investors on myopic R&D investment behavior. The Accounting Review, 73(3), 305–333. Bushee, B. J. (2001). Do institutional investors prefer near-term earnings over long-run value? Contemporary Accounting Research, 18(2), 207–246. Bushee, B. J., & Noe, C. F. (2000). Corporate disclosure practices, institutional investors, and stock return volatility. Journal of Accounting Research, 38(Supplement), 171–202. Caballero, R. J., Hoshi, T., & Kashyap, A. K. (2008). Zombie lending and depressed restructuring in Japan. American Economic Review, 98(5), 1943–1977. Caldecott, B. (2017). Introduction to special issue: Stranded assets and the environment. Journal of Sustainable Finance & Investment, 7(1), 1–13. Campa, J. M., & Kedia, S. (2002). Explaining the diversification discount. Journal of Finance, 57(4), 1731– 1762. Chan, L. K. C., Lakonishok, J., & Sougiannis, T. (2001). The stock market valuation of research and development expenditures. Journal of Finance, 56(6), 2431–2456. Chatterji, A. K., Durand, R., Levine, D. I., & Touboul, S. (2016). Do ratings of firms converge? Implications for managers, investors and strategy researchers. Strategic Management Journal, 37(8), 1597–1614. Chen, S., Matsumoto, D., & Rajgopal, S. (2011). Is silence golden? An empirical analysis of firms that stop giving quarterly earnings guidance. Journal of Accounting and Economics, 51(1–2), 134–150. Christensen, C. M. (1997). The innovator's dilemma: When new technologies cause great firms to fail. Harvard Business School Press. Christensen, D. M., Serafeim, G., & Sikochi, A. (2022). Why is corporate virtue in the eye of the beholder? The case of ESG ratings. The Accounting Review, 97(1), 147–175. Kadowaki — Redefinition Capitalism VURA Capital Innovation Working Paper Series 34 Corrado, C., Hulten, C., & Sichel, D. (2009). Intangible capital and U.S. economic growth. Review of Income and Wealth, 55(3), 661–685. Cremers, M., Lauterbach, B., & Pajuste, A. (2024). The life cycle of dual-class firm valuation. Review of Corporate Finance Studies, 13(2), 459–493. Cremers, M., & Pareek, A. (2016). Patient capital outperformance: The investment skill of high active share managers who trade infrequently. Journal of Financial Economics, 122(2), 288–306. Dechow, P. M., Sloan, R. G., & Soliman, M. T. (2004). Implied equity duration: A new measure of equity risk. Review of Accounting Studies, 9(2–3), 197–228. Decker, R., Haltiwanger, J., Jarmin, R. S., & Miranda, J. (2017). Declining dynamism, allocative efficiency, and the productivity slowdown. American Economic Review: Papers & Proceedings, 107(5), 322–326. deHaan, E., Larcker, D. F., & McClure, C. (2019). Long-term economic consequences of hedge fund activist interventions. Review of Accounting Studies, 24(2), 536–569. Diamond, D. W., & Verrecchia, R. E. (1991). Disclosure, liquidity, and the cost of capital. Journal of Finance, 46(4), 1325–1359. Durlauf, S. N. (2002). On the empirics of social capital. Economic Journal, 112(483), F459–F479. Edmans, A. (2011). Does the stock market fully value intangibles? Employee satisfaction and equity prices. Journal of Financial Economics, 101(3), 621–640. Edmans, A. (2012). The link between job satisfaction and firm value, with implications for corporate social responsibility. Academy of Management Perspectives, 26(4), 1–19. Edmans, A., Fang, V. W., & Huang, A. H. (2022). The long-term consequences of short-term incentives. Journal of Accounting Research, 60(3), 1007–1046. Edmans, A., Fang, V. W., & Lewellen, K. (2017). Equity vesting and investment. Review of Financial Studies, 30(7), 2229–2271. Edmans, A., Pu, D., Zhang, C., & Li, L. (2024). Employee satisfaction, labor market flexibility, and stock returns around the world. Management Science, 70(7), 4357–4380. Eisfeldt, A. L., Kim, E. T., & Papanikolaou, D. (2022). Intangible value. Critical Finance Review, 11(2), 299– 332. Eisfeldt, A. L., & Papanikolaou, D. (2013). Organization capital and the cross-section of expected returns. Journal of Finance, 68(4), 1365–1406. Eisfeldt, A. L., Schubert, G., & Zhang, M. B. (forthcoming). Generative AI and firm values. Journal of Finance. (NBER Working Paper No. 31222.) Eisfeldt, A. L., & Shi, Y. (2018). Capital reallocation. Annual Review of Financial Economics, 10, 361–386. Ernstberger, J., Link, B., Stich, M., & Vogler, O. (2017). The real effects of mandatory quarterly reporting. The Accounting Review, 92(5), 33–60. Flower, J. (2015). The International Integrated Reporting Council: A story of failure. Critical Perspectives on Accounting, 27, 1–17. Fried, J. M., & Wang, C. C. Y. (2019). Short-termism and capital flows. Review of Corporate Finance Studies, 8(1), 207–233. Gillespie, N., Lockey, S., Curtis, C., Pool, J., & Akbari, A. (2023). Trust in artificial intelligence: A global study. University of Queensland & KPMG. Grey literature. Gompers, P. A. (1995). Optimal investment, monitoring, and the staging of venture capital. Journal of Finance, 50(5), 1461–1489. Gormsen, N. J., & Lazarus, E. (2023). Duration-driven returns. Journal of Finance, 78(3), 1393–1447. Graham, J. R., Harvey, C. R., & Puri, M. (2015). Capital allocation and delegation of decision-making authority within firms. Journal of Financial Economics, 115(3), 449–470. Graham, J. R., Harvey, C. R., & Rajgopal, S. (2005). The economic implications of corporate financial reporting. Journal of Accounting and Economics, 40(1–3), 3–73. Kadowaki — Redefinition Capitalism VURA Capital Innovation Working Paper Series 35 Grossman, S. J. (1981). The informational role of warranties and private disclosure about product quality. Journal of Law and Economics, 24(3), 461–483. Grullon, G., Lyandres, E., & Zhdanov, A. (2012). Real options, volatility, and stock returns. Journal of Finance, 67(4), 1499–1537. Guiso, L., Sapienza, P., & Zingales, L. (2011). Civic capital as the missing link. In J. Benhabib, A. Bisin, & M. O. Jackson (Eds.), Handbook of social economics (Vol. 1A, pp. 417–480). North-Holland. Hall, S., Lovallo, D., & Musters, R. (2012). How to put your money where your strategy is. McKinsey Quarterly, March 2012. Grey literature. Harford, J., Kecskés, A., & Mansi, S. (2018). Do long-term investors improve corporate decision making? Journal of Corporate Finance, 50, 424–452. Haskel, J., & Westlake, S. (2018). Capitalism without capital: The rise of the intangible economy. Princeton University Press. Henderson, R. M., & Clark, K. B. (1990). Architectural innovation: The reconfiguration of existing product technologies and the failure of established firms. Administrative Science Quarterly, 35(1), 9–30. Hodgson, G. M. (2014). What is capital? Economists and sociologists have changed its meaning: Should it be changed back? Cambridge Journal of Economics, 38(5), 1063–1086. Hoshi, T., Kashyap, A., & Scharfstein, D. (1991). Corporate structure, liquidity, and investment: Evidence from Japanese industrial groups. Quarterly Journal of Economics, 106(1), 33–60. Houston, J. F., Lev, B., & Tucker, J. W. (2010). To guide or not to guide? Causes and consequences of stopping quarterly earnings guidance. Contemporary Accounting Research, 27(1), 143–185. Hsieh, C.-T., & Klenow, P. J. (2009). Misallocation and manufacturing TFP in China and India. Quarterly Journal of Economics, 124(4), 1403–1448. Hsu, P.-H., Tian, X., & Xu, Y. (2014). Financial development and innovation: Cross-country evidence. Journal of Financial Economics, 112(1), 116–135. Jagannathan, R., Matsa, D. A., Meier, I., & Tarhan, V. (2016). Why do firms use high discount rates? Journal of Financial Economics, 120(3), 445–463. Jensen, M. C., & Meckling, W. H. (1976). Theory of the firm: Managerial behavior, agency costs and ownership structure. Journal of Financial Economics, 3(4), 305–360. Kadowaki, N. (2026a). Future value theory. SSRN Working Paper No. 7120980. Working paper. Kadowaki, N. (2026b). Enterprise redefinition: A framework for the age of AI. SSRN Working Paper No. 7210118. Working paper. Kadowaki, N. (2026c). From job description to purpose description. SSRN Working Paper No. 7259442. Working paper. Kadowaki, N. (2026d). Enterprise redefinition observed: A multiple-case analysis of eighteen enterprises in the age of AI. SSRN Working Paper No. 7250421. Working paper. Kadowaki, N. (2026e). Brain capital management: A firm-level theory of cognitive capability, its three constraints, and its measurement in the age of AI. Working paper, VURA Capital Innovation. Kadowaki, N. (2026f). The self-defined society: An institutional theory of redefinition capitalism, autonomous value definition, and societal redefinition in the age of AI. Working paper, VURA Capital Innovation. Kaplan, S. N. (2018). Are U.S. companies too short-term oriented? Some thoughts. Journal of Applied Corporate Finance, 30(4), 8–18. Kim, H., & Kung, H. (2017). The asset redeployability channel: How uncertainty affects corporate investment. Review of Financial Studies, 30(1), 245–280. King, A. A., & Baatartogtokh, B. (2015). How useful is the theory of disruptive innovation? MIT Sloan Management Review, 57(1), 77–90. Knack, S., & Keefer, P. (1997). Does social capital have an economic payoff? A cross-country investigation. Quarterly Journal of Economics, 112(4), 1251–1288. Kadowaki — Redefinition Capitalism VURA Capital Innovation Working Paper Series 36 Kraft, A. G., Vashishtha, R., & Venkatachalam, M. (2018). Frequent financial reporting and managerial myopia. The Accounting Review, 93(2), 249–275. Lambert, R., Leuz, C., & Verrecchia, R. E. (2007). Accounting information, disclosure, and the cost of capital. Journal of Accounting Research, 45(2), 385–420. La Porta, R., Lopez-de-Silanes, F., Shleifer, A., & Vishny, R. W. (1997). Trust in large organizations. American Economic Review: Papers & Proceedings, 87(2), 333–338. Larcker, D. F., & Watts, E. M. (2020). Where's the greenium? Journal of Accounting and Economics, 69(2– 3), 101312. Lee, J. D., & See, K. A. (2004). Trust in automation: Designing for appropriate reliance. Human Factors, 46(1), 50–80. Leuz, C., & Verrecchia, R. E. (2000). The economic consequences of increased disclosure. Journal of Accounting Research, 38(Supplement), 91–124. Leuz, C., & Wysocki, P. D. (2016). The economics of disclosure and financial reporting regulation: Evidence and suggestions for future research. Journal of Accounting Research, 54(2), 525–622. Lev, B. (2018). The deteriorating usefulness of financial report information and how to reverse it. Accounting and Business Research, 48(5), 465–493. Lev, B., & Gu, F. (2016). The end of accounting and the path forward for investors and managers. Wiley. Lev, B., & Sougiannis, T. (1996). The capitalization, amortization, and value-relevance of R&D. Journal of Accounting and Economics, 21(1), 107–138. Manso, G. (2011). Motivating innovation. Journal of Finance, 66(5), 1823–1860. March, J. G. (1991). Exploration and exploitation in organizational learning. Organization Science, 2(1), 71–87. McGlade, C., & Ekins, P. (2015). The geographical distribution of fossil fuels unused when limiting global warming to 2 °C. Nature, 517, 187–190. Milgrom, P. R. (1981). Good news and bad news: Representation theorems and applications. Bell Journal of Economics, 12(2), 380–391. Milgrom, P., & Roberts, J. (1990). The economics of modern manufacturing: Technology, strategy, and organization. American Economic Review, 80(3), 511–528. Milgrom, P., & Roberts, J. (1995). Complementarities and fit: Strategy, structure, and organizational change in manufacturing. Journal of Accounting and Economics, 19(2–3), 179–208. Myers, S. C. (1977). Determinants of corporate borrowing. Journal of Financial Economics, 5(2), 147–175. Nallareddy, S., Pozen, R., & Rajgopal, S. (2021). Consequences of more frequent reporting: The U.K. experience. Journal of Law, Finance, and Accounting, 6(1), 51–88. Pástor, Ľ., Stambaugh, R. F., & Taylor, L. A. (2021). Sustainable investing in equilibrium. Journal of Financial Economics, 142(2), 550–571. Pástor, Ľ., Stambaugh, R. F., & Taylor, L. A. (2022). Dissecting green returns. Journal of Financial Economics, 146(2), 403–424. Peters, R. H., & Taylor, L. A. (2017). Intangible capital and the investment-q relation. Journal of Financial Economics, 123(2), 251–272. Raghunandan, A., & Rajgopal, S. (2022). Do ESG funds make stakeholder-friendly investments? Review of Accounting Studies, 27(3), 822–863. Roe, M. J. (2013). Corporate short-termism — in the boardroom and in the courtroom. The Business Lawyer, 68(4), 977–1006. Sasaki, I., Kotlar, J., Ravasi, D., & Vaara, E. (2020). Dealing with revered past: Historical identity statements and strategic change in Japanese family firms. Strategic Management Journal, 41(3), 590– 623. Scharfstein, D. S., & Stein, J. C. (2000). The dark side of internal capital markets: Divisional rent-seeking and inefficient investment. Journal of Finance, 55(6), 2537–2564. Kadowaki — Redefinition Capitalism VURA Capital Innovation Working Paper Series 37 Sharfman, B. S. (2019). The undesirability of mandatory time-based sunsets in dual-class share structures: A reply to Bebchuk and Kastiel. Southern California Law Review Postscript. Commentary. Shin, H.-H., & Stulz, R. M. (1998). Are internal capital markets efficient? Quarterly Journal of Economics, 113(2), 531–552. Solow, R. M. (1995, September 11). But verify [Review of the book Trust, by F. Fukuyama]. The New Republic, 36–39. Magazine review. Solow, R. M. (2000). Notes on social capital and economic performance. In P. Dasgupta & I. Serageldin (Eds.), Social capital: A multifaceted perspective (pp. 6–10). World Bank. Solow, R. M. (1987, July 12). We'd better watch out [Review of the book Manufacturing matters, by S. S. Cohen & J. Zysman]. The New York Times Book Review, 36. Magazine review. Spence, M. (1973). Job market signaling. Quarterly Journal of Economics, 87(3), 355–374. Stein, J. C. (1997). Internal capital markets and the competition for corporate resources. Journal of Finance, 52(1), 111–133. Terry, S. J. (2023). The macro impact of short-termism. Econometrica, 91(5), 1881–1912. Thomsen, S., Poulsen, T., Børsting, C., & Kuhn, J. (2018). Industrial foundations as long-term owners. Corporate Governance: An International Review, 26(3), 180–196. Tian, X., & Wang, T. Y. (2014). Tolerance for failure and corporate innovation. Review of Financial Studies, 27(1), 211–255. Tripsas, M., & Gavetti, G. (2000). Capabilities, cognition, and inertia: Evidence from digital imaging. Strategic Management Journal, 21(10–11), 1147–1161. van Binsbergen, J. H., Brandt, M. W., & Koijen, R. S. J. (2012). On the timing and pricing of dividends. American Economic Review, 102(4), 1596–1618. Verrecchia, R. E. (1983). Discretionary disclosure. Journal of Accounting and Economics, 5, 179–194. Villalonga, B. (2004). Diversification discount or premium? New evidence from the Business Information Tracking Series. Journal of Finance, 59(2), 479–506. Kadowaki — Redefinition Capitalism VURA Capital Innovation Working Paper Series 38