Dear Capsuleers,
I think I have something more interesting to present. In the course of the studies of Elsebeth Rhiannon and I we have come up with a hypothesis that offers an alternative (and most importantly: simpler and better fitting) explanation of why some systems proceed to Liminality and some do not. It is quite a bit simpler than the highly complex star- and system-analysis that ARC and other researchers have relied on previously but fits the data quite well:
The Balance-Of-Power-Hypothesis of Liminality (BOPL)
In my view, the scientific community has, in its heretofore taken views on the circumstances of the Triglavians achieving Liminality in a given system overfocused on the astronometric side. This is not surprising in that the astronometric school was heavily involved from an early point with stellar observation being an important matter and their work receiving widespread recognition.
I do not want to say that this analysis is wrong, but I think it has so far been blind to certain other factors contributing to Liminality. Namely, the balance of power between Triglavian forces and EDENCOM as expressed through the amount of so called “Minor Victories” (that may be misnamed if my theory is correct) each side has accumulated.
This narrow focus on astrometric observation with disregard to strategic considerations has also lead to wrong conclusion in so far as the scientists tried to fit outcomes on star-types that were not produced by star-types in the first place.
Instead, I propose that for a system to proceed into liminality, two conditions need to be met:
(A) The Star-Type needs to be suitable to Liminal Transmutation (Immanence: Gold or Immanence Glory) - Local factor.
(B) The Triglavian Collective needs to have a relatively secure strategic position across the cluster (e.g. there are at least as many Triglavian Minor Victories as there are EDENCOM ones) - Global factor.
Data based evidence
This fits with the data currently available.
(X Axis: Difference between EDENCOM and Triglavian Minor Victories, Y axis: results of Triglavian victory in recon; Credit for chart Sky Seolec and Elsebeth Rhiannon)
Other evidence
It also grants further credence to two other factors previously observed:
(1) The EDENCOM strategy of “Defense in depth” that is ostensibly based on denying the Triglavian foothold systems to “live of the land”-tactics. Given the assumption that Triglavians need Minor Victory systems as footholds to create the conditions for Liminal progress, this EDENCOM strategy suddenly seems much more sensible and logical then before. I guess they based it on deeper understanding of Triglavian strategy then is publicly available.
(2) The failure of some stars to progress to Liminality then astrometric theories. For example, take the system of Carrou. This was basically a shoe-in for Liminality with extremely high scores on all predictors. It failed to proceed to Liminality.
The scientific community answered by adding more factors into the fitting of the predictors. This was probably a wrong conclusion. I think we can find a much simpler astrometric predictor by exclusing failed liminalities that failed while Triglavian forces were unable to proceed the Star. In such, we arrive at a simpler, more straightforward astrometric solution AND a much simpler overall explanation of Liminality.
Further research
If this theory proves to be correct, we also will need to re-simplify the astronometric models by disregarding Stars not proceeding to Liminality if the BOPL-Condition was not fulfilled. Also, further research is needed to the explanation why triglavian need the balance of power to proceed their operations and what EDENCOM knows about it. This may also inform further research into the process itself and strategic decisions taken by the sides.
Digitally signed,
Scius Falkenhaupt
Kybernaut Researcher