The rule, exactly. Before an election each citizen chooses: to vote — or to take a payment and not vote in that election. The payment is a percentage of the median income, set by referendum; there is no fixed sum. One ballot is one vote, with no multiplier in the count; the vote is amplified only in that each ballot's share grows as others step out. The budget pays under law; a candidate never pays. Only a referendum of all citizens — simple majority, no quorum — introduces, changes or repeals the rule.
The protocol has been introduced nowhere and no pilot has been run: shares, turnout and outcome figures in the chapters are estimates, and the protocol promises nobody an election victory. If a chapter says otherwise, Exact Answers and the Charter are correct. For a candidate: ten questions and ten steps. For a citizen, a mayor, a finance officer, a donor, a journalist, a scholar, a lawyer: answers by role. Everything in force in one file: llms-full.txt.
The Seventh AI: the Protocol of a Failed Self-Attack¶
Chapter: 06 — Structural Hypocrisy and the Arsenal of the Elites File: 06_037 · v1 · 12 June 2026 (session 34)
How to read this chapter (note of 02.10.2026). The text contains wording that is easy to misread: a "reversible" choice means "at the next election": within one election exit is final. The exact-answers sheet 1d and the charter 048m are in force.
Purpose¶
A documented case of an adversarial test of a new type: the Claude model (Anthropic, Fable 5), which took part in developing the repository, attacked the project with five "vectors of harm" at the author's direct demand ("name how AB-EXIT harms people if it is adopted"). Result: four vectors broke on the existing text of the protocol; the fifth was converted into an article of the charter. The case's value is double: (1) a row for the README stress-test table; (2) a methodological lesson — an objection must be checked against the document before being presented.
Five attack vectors and their fate¶
Vector 1 — creditors and garnishment. "A predictable annual payment will immediately become collateral: microloans against the dividend, seizure of payments by collectors, lending against 'payday' in depressed areas." — THE ONLY SURVIVOR. The protocol had no protection of the paid dividend from recovery (the autonomous trust protects the money up to the citizen, not after). Converted into an article of the charter (below). The precedent is ready: Alaska legislatively protected the PFD from garnishment (AS 43.23.140: exempt from levy, execution, garnishment, attachment — with narrow exceptions: child support, debts to the state).
Vector 2 — family coercion. "The head of a patriarchal family will make the decision 'everyone takes the dividend' for all, take the money, and the family loses its votes." — Broken by the text of the protocol: the Anti-Coercion mechanism (README, item 4): pressure by parties, employers and third parties on a citizen's choice is a criminal offence; "third parties" includes the family. The A/B choice is an individual act with the logic of the secrecy of the booth. An abusive family can also pressure ordinary voting — AB-EXIT does not create a new vulnerability; it for the first time covers an existing one with a corpus delicti.
Vector 3 — degradation of exited regions. "A politician ignores a district with 70 % exit — infrastructure and attention go where voters remain." — Broken by its own methodology: this is static analysis of a dynamic system — the error imputed to Stiglitz (§035). Cyclicity (README, item 6): the choice resets every cycle; the politician knows this from day one; degradation of the environment is exactly the trigger that returns the district to button A en masse. The residue — a lag of one cycle, the same honest price as with Stiglitz.
Vector 4 — a legitimacy crisis ("the power of 35 %"). "A government elected by a third of the electorate with 65 % on the dividend will be declared illegitimate by the losers." — Broken by the $10K question: today a government is elected by ~30 % of the electorate (52 % turnout × ~60 %) with 48 % silent without any act — and is called legitimate. Under AB-EXIT the same people perform an official, registered, compensated, reversible act: participation in the system ~100 % in two forms. "We were excluded" is rhetorically dead against one's own signature and the money received. Legitimacy grows. (The application of §29 to the attacker itself.)
Vector 5 — the irreversible norm "the vote has a price". "An idea once normalised cannot be switched off by referendum; what it will do to civic culture nobody knows." — Broken by the repository's central fact: the norm has operated for decades covertly — Germany ~€1/vote to parties, France ~€1.40, the USA a $26B+ industry per cycle. AB-EXIT does not introduce the norm — it changes the payee and makes the norm explicit. The attack defended the innocence of a world that does not exist.
The score and the row for the README¶
Claude Fable 5 (Anthropic) — 5 vectors of harm — 4 refuted by the text of the protocol — 1 converted into an article of the charter. Telling: a model that knew the whole repository, when attacking, did not apply it to its own arguments — four of the five objections already had answers in the published text.
The methodological lesson¶
An objection is checked against the document before being presented. The sequence: (1) formulate the vector; (2) run it through the README mechanisms (formula, weights, autonomy, anti-coercion, rights, cyclicity, legitimacy) and through the Question v4.3 filters; (3) present only what survived. This is also the instruction to an external critic and the structure of the $10K filter: most attacks die at step 2.
The constructive outcome: an anti-garnishment article of the charter¶
Wording for the legal block (chapter 09 and all country adaptations):
Article N. Protection of the dividend. The civic dividend accrued and paid under this law: (a) is not subject to seizure, recovery, withholding, pledge, assignment or set-off under any private obligations of the recipient; (b) is not counted in assessing need for state benefits and programmes; (c) may not serve as security for loans, and contracts providing for such security or the assignment of the right to future payments are void; (d) exceptions are allowed only for child-support obligations — within limits set by a court. Lending against the expected payment date at an effective rate above the limit set by law constitutes usury.
The precedent base: Alaska Stat. § 43.23.140 (protection of the PFD); the federal protection of Social Security benefits (42 U.S.C. § 407). Without this article the mechanism in poor areas works for the creditor, not the citizen — vector 1 remains the only valid harm and must be closed in every charter before the pilot.
Related: §29 · §035 (analysis methodology) · README (7 mechanisms, stress-test table) · Question v4.3 · chapter 09 legal · Gaaze-Russia 056a (self-verification of violations)