Infographic summarizing the EPI framework, the cascade of consequences across policy / market / social tissue layers, and the Proposition U worked example with -$16.5B net value ↗ open full size

companion overview

Math Proves Los Angeles Failed by Design

NotebookLM overview, generated from this atlas

policy study - city of los angeles - 1781-2026

the los angeles externality atlas

Predictable externalities of planning, preservation, and policy in 11 decision nodes.

Los Angeles did not merely suffer unintended consequences. It accumulated predictable externalities from policy decisions whose costs were often displaced across time, geography, and class. The atlas defines those externalities, attaches each to measurable statistics, and renders alternative-branch algebra: NPV(P) = Σ [B + X⁺ − X⁻ − C] / (1+r)t, with an Externality Predictability Index (EPI = M·K·T·S) on every node.

11 decision nodes (1781 - 2026)
2 / 11 nodes with EPI ≥ 0.50 (foreseeable+)
0.34 mean EPI across the catalog
P2 / P6 build phases shipped

framing

From counterfactual history to externality algebra.

The atlas is not a list of mistakes and it is not historical fan fiction. It is an externality ledger. For each of eleven decisions, the page records what the policy was for, what it produced as a positive spillover, what it produced as a negative spillover, who won, who paid, and what plausible or evidence-backed alternative would have generated a different externality bundle. Every claim carries its evidentiary tier, and every externality carries its Externality Predictability Index — because the study's focus is Type E externalities: foreseeable at the time of the decision, ignored anyway.

taxonomy

Six externality types — the study lives in Type E

Type A Intended direct benefit

preserve architecturally significant buildings

Type B Intended direct cost

limit demolition or redevelopment rights

Type C Positive externality

neighborhood identity, tourism, cultural continuity

Type D Negative externality

reduced housing capacity, displacement pressure

Type E Predictable but ignored externality

downzoning during population growth produces scarcity

Type F Unpredictable externality

rare shock, tech change, disaster interaction

Type E — externalities that were predictable at the time of the decision and accepted as the price of doing business — is where the policy work is. The atlas tags each node's primary externality type as part of its EPI bin.

cross-section

The city as urban tissue

"Histological" is borrowed from biology, where it names tissue-level study. The atlas uses it as a visualization layer for causal stack — policy at the epidermis, capital in the dermis, infrastructure as vasculature, households as social tissue, identity as cultural tissue, and predictable externalities as the pathology that accumulates across all of them.

Policy epidermis rules ordinances, plans, overlays, approvals
Market dermis capital rents, land values, construction costs, financing
Infrastructure vasculature systems roads, transit, water, power, sewers
Social tissue households migration, displacement, homelessness
Cultural tissue memory landmarks, streetscape, identity
Pathology accumulation predictable externalities compounding over time

timeline

Eleven decision nodes, 1781 – 2026

Decision-node timeline of Los Angeles policy Eleven decision nodes plotted from 1781 to 2026, dot color encodes confidence tier. 1800 1850 1900 1950 2000 documented inferred speculative N01 1781 N02 1908 N03 1913 N04 1920s N05 1947–65 N06 1948–70 N07 1978 N08 1986 N09 1980s–90s N10 1990s–2010s N11 2017–26
Dot color encodes confidence tier on the historical record. EPI (Externality Predictability Index) for the same nodes is shown on each card.

predictability at a glance

EPI score, every node — ranked

EPI score for all eleven decision nodes, sorted highest to lowest Horizontal bar chart. Vertical bands separate weakly predictable (0–0.25), plausible (0.25–0.50), foreseeable (0.50–0.75), and highly predictable (0.75–1.00). N08 Prop U leads at 0.58. weakly plausible foreseeable highly 0.00 0.25 0.50 0.75 1.00 EPI = M · K · T · S N08 0.58 N04 0.51 N07 0.42 N06 0.41 N10 0.38 N05 0.37 N09 0.34 N03 0.29 N02 0.21 N11 0.17 N01 0.04
N08 Prop U is the most predictable node in the catalog (EPI = 0.58). N01 founding-era externalities are weakly predictable by design: the data is sparser, the causal claims older.

confidence × predictability

Where each node sits on the record vs the forecast

Scatter of source-record confidence against EPI predictability X-axis: source-record evidence multiplier M (0.70 to 1.00). Y-axis: Externality Predictability Index (0 to 1). Top-right quadrant is "well-documented and highly foreseeable" — the highest-leverage zone. M = 0.70 M = 0.80 M = 0.90 M = 1.00 0.00 0.25 0.50 0.75 1.00 well-known, foreseeable inferred, foreseeable well-known, low-EPI inferred, low-EPI source-record confidence (M) EPI N01 N02 N03 N04 N05 N06 N07 N08 N09 N10 N11
Top-right is where this study earns its keep: N04, N06, N07 all sit at high record-confidence and high or near-high EPI. These are decisions where the externality was foreseeable, the record is solid, and the historical defense ("nobody could have known") is weakest.

domain coverage

How many of the eleven nodes touch each domain

Horizontal bar chart of domain coverage Counts of how many of the 11 nodes touch each externality domain. Housing supply leads at 8. supply 8 equity 4 environment 2 culture 2 fiscal 2 land 1 water 1 mobility 1 displacement 1 legal 1
The asymmetry is the point. "Housing supply" appears in 8 of 11 nodes — because most LA policy cascades route through supply at some stage. Use the filter chips below to see which nodes drive each domain.

filter

Filter the ledger by domain

externality ledger

Per-node: intended benefit, positive ext, negative ext, distribution, EPI

N01

Pueblo founding / Spanish colonial grid

1781·path dependence

0.04 EPI · weakly predictable
0.75 record M · inferred
actors
Spanish colonial administration; Tongva displacement uncosted in the original record
intended benefit (B)
Defensible settlement adjacent to LA River for irrigation and trade
positive externality (X⁺)
Established the civic core that anchored 250+ years of identity and trade routes
negative externality (X⁻)
Path-locked LA into a flood-plain footprint and a water-rights regime that later required the 1913 aqueduct
benefit to
Spanish colonial state; later settlers
burden on
Tongva and other Indigenous nations; downstream water users
alternative · plausible
Grid sited away from flood-vulnerable river plain; explicit common-water charter
EPI factors
M=0.40 K=0.30 T=0.60 S=0.50
domains hit
landwater
source: City of LA — founding history →
N02

First land-use zoning ordinance

1908·separation of uses

0.21 EPI · weakly predictable
0.85 record M · documented
actors
City Council; industrial districts mapped first to protect single-family pockets
intended benefit (B)
Nuisance reduction; separation of noxious industry from residential pockets
positive externality (X⁺)
Predictable land-use patterns reducing ad hoc nuisance conflicts
negative externality (X⁻)
Established the legal scaffold for later exclusionary zoning and separation of home from job
benefit to
Single-family neighborhoods; pioneering planning movement
burden on
Future renters and minority residents excluded from amenity areas
alternative · plausible
Use-based mixing with nuisance enforcement; no a-priori separation of housing from work
EPI factors
M=0.75 K=0.55 T=0.65 S=0.80
domains hit
supplyequity
source: Wikipedia — Zoning in the US →
N03

LA Aqueduct + annexation regime

1913·externalized resource cost

0.29 EPI · plausible
0.90 record M · documented
actors
Mulholland / Board of Water Commissioners; Owens Valley landowners as net losers
intended benefit (B)
Reliable water supply enabling metropolitan growth
positive externality (X⁺)
Agglomeration economies; agricultural and industrial expansion
negative externality (X⁻)
Unlocked metropolitan growth; transferred ecological and equity costs upstream to the Owens Valley
benefit to
LA growth coalition; settlers; downtown business
burden on
Owens Valley farmers; ecosystem; downstream Mono Basin
alternative · plausible
Negotiated multi-jurisdiction water compact; growth capped to local watershed yield
EPI factors
M=0.85 K=0.70 T=0.60 S=0.80
domains hit
supplyenvironment
source: Wikipedia — Los Angeles Aqueduct →
N04

Single-family districting + restrictive covenants

1920s·Tiebout sorting + collective action

0.51 EPI · foreseeable
0.90 record M · documented
actors
Homeowner associations; subdividers; courts (until Shelley v. Kraemer, 1948)
intended benefit (B)
Stable residential neighborhoods with property-value protection
positive externality (X⁺)
Predictable lot patterns; preserved bungalow streetscape that endures today
negative externality (X⁻)
Hardened the racial wealth gap and removed roughly two-thirds of the city from multifamily eligibility
benefit to
White homeowners; subdividers
burden on
Black, Latino, Asian, Jewish households excluded from majority of the city
alternative · evidence-backed
Form-based code permitting low-rise multifamily citywide; race-neutral covenants voided earlier
EPI factors
M=0.95 K=0.80 T=0.75 S=0.90
domains hit
equitysupply
source: Wikipedia — Shelley v. Kraemer →
N05

Freeway buildout / Boyle Heights routing

1947–65·irreversibility

0.37 EPI · plausible
0.90 record M · documented
actors
Division of Highways (Caltrans precursor); federal Interstate funds; displaced residents
intended benefit (B)
Regional mobility; postwar interstate connectivity
positive externality (X⁺)
Faster commerce, port-airport-rail integration, decentralized employment
negative externality (X⁻)
Severed neighborhoods, locked LA into car dependency, displaced an estimated 10,000+ households
benefit to
Suburban commuters; logistics sector; auto industry
burden on
Boyle Heights, Sugar Hill, other Black and Latino neighborhoods; future air-quality victims
alternative · evidence-backed
Rail-anchored regional mobility (preserving Pacific Electric); freeways routed around dense neighborhoods
EPI factors
M=0.90 K=0.70 T=0.70 S=0.85
domains hit
mobilityequityenvironment
source: Wikipedia — Pacific Electric →
N06

Redevelopment / urban renewal demolitions

1948–70·externalized displacement cost

0.41 EPI · plausible
0.90 record M · documented
actors
Community Redevelopment Agency; lenders; tenants without standing
intended benefit (B)
Slum clearance; modern downtown; infrastructure modernization
positive externality (X⁺)
Civic-center icons; institutional anchor sites; some adaptive-reuse pipelines
negative externality (X⁻)
Bunker Hill and Chavez Ravine erased dense, affordable housing stock; replacement towers under-housed prior residents
benefit to
Downtown business; institutional developers; later baseball franchise
burden on
Bunker Hill tenants; Palo Verde, La Loma, Bishop residents of Chavez Ravine
alternative · evidence-backed
Rehabilitation grants conditioned on right-of-return; no demolition without one-for-one replacement
EPI factors
M=0.95 K=0.80 T=0.60 S=0.90
domains hit
displacementculture
source: Wikipedia — Chavez Ravine →
N07

Proposition 13 — fiscal regime lock

1978·rent-seeking coalition

0.42 EPI · plausible
0.90 record M · documented
actors
Statewide electorate; commercial property owners as durable beneficiaries
intended benefit (B)
Property-tax relief for homeowners on fixed incomes
positive externality (X⁺)
Reduced involuntary displacement of long-term homeowners during the 1970s inflation
negative externality (X⁻)
Decoupled property tax from market value; concentrated incumbency benefits; pushed cities toward sales-tax-chasing land use
benefit to
Long-tenured homeowners; commercial property owners (Disneyland still assessed at 1975 value)
burden on
Renters; new buyers; local services dependent on property tax
alternative · plausible
Split-roll reform; assessment cap on owner-occupied only
EPI factors
M=0.85 K=0.70 T=0.75 S=0.95
domains hit
fiscalsupply
source: Wikipedia — California Proposition 13 (1978) →
N08

Proposition U — commercial downzoning

1986·capacity removal

0.58 EPI · foreseeable
0.85 record M · documented
actors
Homeowner federations; reaction to mid-1980s growth
intended benefit (B)
Protect single-family neighborhoods from commercial encroachment
positive externality (X⁺)
Stabilized corridor scale; predictable streetscape preservation in some areas
negative externality (X⁻)
Halved commercial floor area allowed on most corridors; one of the single largest cuts to zoned capacity in any US city
benefit to
Single-family homeowners adjoining commercial corridors
burden on
Renters; future commercial tenants; transit-corridor potential; fiscal yield per acre
alternative · plausible
Targeted form regulation on corridors; preserved as-of-right commercial intensity near transit
EPI factors
M=0.95 K=0.85 T=0.80 S=0.90
domains hit
supplyfiscal
source: ScienceDirect — zoned capacity and housing production →
N09

HPOZ + HCM designations without re-review

1980s–90s·conservation vs supply trade-off · stale designation

0.34 EPI · plausible
0.80 record M · documented
actors
Office of Historic Resources; neighborhood preservation councils; absent re-review schedule
intended benefit (B)
Preserve architectural and cultural heritage of historic neighborhoods
positive externality (X⁺)
Tourist value; community identity; embodied-carbon retention; adaptive-reuse pipelines where conditions permit
negative externality (X⁻)
Cultural preservation is sound in the global scope. In the specifics: HPOZ and HCM designations from the 1970s–90s lock buildings against redevelopment with no periodic re-review, including structures now functionally unlivable. Foregone units, lost tax base per acre, and public-safety burdens of long-vacant designated structures sit off the original designation ledger.
benefit to
Existing owners in designated districts; preservation councils; heritage tourism; status quo on parcel-level review
burden on
Renters seeking new supply; neighbors of long-vacant unlivable HCMs; public-safety budgets; growth pressure absorbed by adjacent lower-income neighborhoods
alternative · evidence-backed
Object-scale landmarking; mandatory periodic re-review (10–15y cadence) with condition-based delisting; designation files required to disclose foregone-unit estimates; structural-safety override that releases parcels uninhabitable for N years
EPI factors
M=0.80 K=0.75 T=0.70 S=0.80
domains hit
culturesupply
source: PDC HCM-1200 case audits →
N10

CEQA litigation normalization

1990s–2010s·tragedy of the anti-commons

0.38 EPI · plausible
0.75 record M · inferred
actors
Plaintiff groups; appellate courts; project sponsors as serial defendants
intended benefit (B)
Environmental review of major projects
positive externality (X⁺)
Public input mechanism; impact disclosure; genuine environmental protections in some cases
negative externality (X⁻)
Added veto-player layers; predictable delay added to project pro-formas; chilled by-right multifamily
benefit to
Plaintiff bar; project opponents; environmental consultants
burden on
Infill housing; renters; transit ridership; future climate co-benefits
alternative · plausible
Categorical exemptions for transit-proximate infill; loser-pays for project-blocking suits
EPI factors
M=0.85 K=0.70 T=0.75 S=0.85
domains hit
supplylegal
source: Wikipedia — California Environmental Quality Act →
N11

TOC, ED1, RHNA, SB-era reforms

2017–26·coordination failure (partial)

0.17 EPI · weakly predictable
0.85 record M · documented
actors
State legislature; LADCP; Mayor’s Office; affordable-housing builders
intended benefit (B)
Statewide housing-supply correction; transit-oriented density
positive externality (X⁺)
Documented unit gains where applied; reduced veto-player power; faster approvals on ED1 tracks
negative externality (X⁻)
Partial correction to the cascade; meaningful unit gains where used, but uneven coverage and continued litigation friction
benefit to
Affordable-housing builders; future renters; transit corridors
burden on
Existing homeowner expectations in some areas; uneven litigation friction in non-applying jurisdictions
alternative · plausible
Wider by-right upzoning paired with anti-displacement guarantees
EPI factors
M=0.75 K=0.65 T=0.50 S=0.70
domains hit
supplyequity
source: LA Planning — Housing Element →

worked example · n08

Proposition U (1986) — NPV, EPI, and a bundle comparison

Numbers below are illustrative, labeled inferred · M=0.75. They show how the apparatus on this page would carry a real estimate without overclaiming. Phase 4 will replace the point estimates with confidence bands.

NPV(N08)

B    = $0.50 B/yr   intended benefit (corridor stability)
X⁺   = $0.10 B/yr   positive externality (streetscape continuity)
X⁻   = $1.50 B/yr   foregone commercial floor area + tax base
C    = $0.05 B/yr   admin / CEQA layering

annual net = B + X⁺ - X⁻ - C
           = -0.95 B/yr

NPV (r=0.03, t=40y) = annual_net · annuity_factor
                              = -22.0 B (raw)

NPV adjusted by M (0.75)
                              = -16.5 B

EPI(N08) = M · K · T · S

M = 0.95   mechanism clarity     (capacity → scarcity is mechanical)
K = 0.85   prior knowledge       (US zoning literature pre-1986)
T = 0.80   time-to-effect        (15–25y to fully express)
S = 0.90   statistical observability (permits, rents, vacancies)

EPI = 0.95 · 0.85 · 0.80 · 0.90
    = 0.581    "foreseeable"

NPV waterfall — annual flow before the discount

Each step shows the running balance for one year of Prop U effects, illustrative. B and X⁺ go right; X⁻ and C go left. The grey "annual net" bar at the bottom is the signed sum that gets multiplied by the annuity factor and the evidence multiplier M.

NPV waterfall for Prop U showing annual net Five horizontal bars from a zero line. Positive contributions (B, X⁺) go right; negative (X⁻, C) go left. The bottom annual-net bar shows the signed sum, illustrative. 0 -1.5 -1.0 -0.5 0.0 0.5 $B per year B (intended) +0.50 X⁺ (positive) +0.10 X⁻ (negative) -1.50 C (admin) -0.05 annual net -0.95
Annual net for Prop U: -0.95 B/yr. Discounted over 40y at r=0.03: NPV ≈ -22.0 B raw, or -16.5 B after the M=0.75 evidence multiplier.

Externality bundle — N08 actual vs three alternatives, by domain

Each cluster is one domain. Within a cluster, four bars compare branches. Per-domain scores on a −8…+8 scale: + = public value generated, − = externality imposed. The shape of each branch is the point — Alt C ("TOC + tenant guard") tilts positive across more domains than any other branch.

Grouped bar chart of N08 externality bundle across six domains Six clusters along the horizontal axis (supply, rent, culture, fiscal, equity, climate). Within each cluster, four bars compare Actual, Alt A, Alt B, and Alt C. Bars above the zero line indicate public value; below indicate externality. -8 -4 +4 +8 0 -8 +4 +8 +6 supply -7 +2 +5 +4 rent +3 +4 -4 +1 culture -4 +3 +6 +4 fiscal -6 +2 +2 +6 equity -5 +3 +5 +5 climate Actual: Prop U (downzone) Alt A: corridor form code Alt B: pure as-of-right Alt C: TOC + tenant guard
Read the shape, not the magnitudes. The actual policy (red) carries the deepest downside across supply, rent, fiscal, equity, and climate. Alt C balances supply gains against equity protections; Alt B maximizes supply at the cost of culture.
Show the underlying table
branch supply rent culture fiscal equity climate
Actual: Prop U (downzone) -8 -7 +3 -4 -6 -5
Alt A: corridor form code +4 +2 +4 +3 +2 +3
Alt B: pure as-of-right +8 +5 -4 +6 +2 +5
Alt C: TOC + tenant guard +6 +4 +1 +4 +6 +5

ΔPolicy = NPV(Alt) − NPV(Actual). The best branch is not the one with no harm; it is the one with the highest net value and the lowest catastrophic downside.

n09 case detail

Preservation failure mode in the specifics

Cultural preservation has real public value: streetscape continuity, embodied-carbon retention, identity, tourism. At the global scope the case is sound. The Type E externality lives in the specifics — and the specifics are the part preservation proponents typically do not put on the ledger.

the mechanism

  • Unlivable but locked. Buildings designated as Historic-Cultural Monuments (HCMs) or sitting inside HPOZs can become functionally unlivable — structural failure, fire damage, deferred maintenance, sealed infrastructure — and still cannot be redeveloped without onerous discretionary review.
  • No re-review schedule. Designations from the 1970s–90s have rarely been re-reviewed against current conditions. A 1982 listing can still bind a 2026 redevelopment proposal after decades of vacancy or condemnation.
  • Missing from the cultural-value case. Preservation advocates count amenity, identity, and heritage tourism on the public-benefit side. They do not typically account for foregone housing units, lost tax base per acre, or the public-safety burden of long-vacant designated structures.

cataloged cases — PDC HCM-1200 series

The HCM-1200 series audits individual designations against current use and condition. Two have already been labeled false positive; several others sit on parcels where the structure is unlivable but the designation persists with no scheduled re-review.

The plausible alternative for N09 is not "no preservation." It is preservation with mandatory periodic re-review (10–15y cadence), condition-based delisting, designation files that disclose foregone-unit estimates, and a structural-safety override that releases parcels where the building has been uninhabitable for N years.

mechanism

The externality cascade — each leaf tagged with its driver nodes

Externality cascade from policy constraint to compounded outcomes A policy constraint reduces feasible supply, which lifts land price, lengthens commutes, and lowers fiscal yield per acre, each branching into further compounded outcomes. Policy Constraint Reduced feasible supply N02 · N04 · N08 · N09 · N10 Higher land prices N04 · N07 · N08 Longer commutes N05 · N04 Lower fiscal yield / acre N07 · N08 Higher rents N04 · N08 · N09 Speculative holding N07 Traffic N05 Emissions N05 Lost labor time N05 Budget stress N07 Deferred maintenance N07 Lower public trust N10 Overcrowding N04 · N08 Displacement N05 · N06 Homelessness risk N08 · N09
Driver-node labels under each box point back to the ledger. The shape generalizes; the magnitudes do not. Per-node magnitudes are addressed in Phase 4 and will be rendered with confidence bands, not point estimates.

game-theory frame

Simplified payoff matrix

stakeholder city chooses: upzone + build city chooses: preserve + restrict
Homeowners (H) Medium High
Renters / future residents (R) High Low
Developers (D) High Low / Medium
Preservation (P) Medium High
Fiscal yield (F) High Medium / Low
Emissions (E) Medium / High Low / Medium
Homelessness pressure (U) Lower Higher
Political friction (C) High short-term High long-term

Dominant trap: incumbents receive concentrated benefits from restriction; non-residents and future residents pay diffuse, invisible losses. The people most harmed often cannot vote in the jurisdiction, cannot attend hearings, or do not yet live in the city.

algebra

Three formulas the page actually uses

NPV(P)   = Σ_t [ B_t + X⁺_t − X⁻_t − C_t ] / (1+r)^t

ΔPolicy  = NPV(Alternative) − NPV(Actual)

EPI      = M · K · T · S
           M = mechanism clarity
           K = prior knowledge from literature / history
           T = time-to-effect visibility
           S = statistical observability

domain weights (atlas v1 defaults)

  • housing supply 0.20
  • rent burden 0.15
  • displacement 0.15
  • homelessness 0.10
  • fiscal yield 0.10
  • commute time 0.08
  • emissions 0.07
  • infrastructure cost 0.05
  • cultural value 0.05
  • legal / process cost 0.03
  • health burden 0.02

EPI bins

  • 0.00 – 0.25 weakly predictable
  • 0.25 – 0.50 plausible
  • 0.50 – 0.75 foreseeable
  • 0.75 – 1.00 highly predictable

Net node scores are model outputs, not moral truth. Both weights and EPI factors are published constants so a reader can argue with them.

visual rule

Counterfactual quality scale

Fantasy 2 / 10

NOT rendered as a visual

"what if LA became Paris"

Plausible 8 / 10

Rendered, labeled with the tier

"what if a recorded proposal from year T had been adopted"

Evidence-backed 9 / 10

Rendered, labeled, sourced inline

"what if a documented alternative with observed elasticities was used"

Fantasy counterfactuals are not rendered as visuals on this site. Every node's alternative carries its tier on the card. v1 has zero evidence-backed visuals; that is Phase 5's job.

build plan

Six phases, two shipped

  1. P1
    Scope lock · done

    11 decision nodes, domain weights, evidence multipliers, fact/sim seam discipline.

  2. P2
    Atlas v1 · done

    This page: ledger schema, NPV+EPI apparatus, cross-section, timeline, per-node cards, cascade with driver tags, bundle comparison, formula, counterfactual scale.

  3. P3
    Source base · next

    Populate every node with per-claim citations: LA Times, ordinances, Census, LAHSA, OHR, peer-reviewed papers.

  4. P4
    Quant model · queued

    Externality-bundle table for every node; confidence bands instead of point estimates; dollar conversion factors per domain.

  5. P5
    Simulation visuals · queued

    Side-by-side reality vs alternative for the three highest-EPI nodes (N04, N08, N06).

  6. P6
    Public narrative · queued

    Article series, deck, policy brief — "LA accumulated predictable externalities. It did not simply suffer unintended consequences."

value

Emergent and cascading value layers

L0
Raw prompt / concept proposal seeds, framing
$5K – $50K
L1
Phased research plan grant nucleus, civic roadmap
$25K – $250K
L2
White paper + dataset foundations, advocacy, media
$150K – $1.5M
L3
Interactive simulator universities, agencies, cities
$250K – $10M
L4
Decision-support engine agencies, philanthropies
$1M – $40M
L5
Urban twin / civic AI urban-tech, replicable cities
$10M – $75M+
L6
Policy-impact / avoided cost society, taxpayers, renters
$100M – $100B+

Layers compound. The upper bands assume the artifact stays citable: confidence-labeled, sourced, and willing to say what it does not know.

in this series

Adjacent PDC studies of LA policy

la pareto policy study efficiency audit hcm-1200 planning study subsidies for the already saved mills act equity analysis sphere-based design theory + case studies

Sources

Atlas v1 lists general entry points. Phase 3 will replace these with per-claim citations and add primary sources for every node card.