CIVIC BALANCE INSTITUTE (CBI) – EXECUTIVE OFFICE, BATON ROUGE – NEXT DAY
The sun sets across the Mississippi, casting golden shards through the tall gss windows of CBI’s headquarters. The walls are lined with soft lighting and curated stillness.
Inside, it feels less like a think tank and more like the war room of a doctrine disguised as civility.
Morgan Yates sits alone at a round table when the door opens.
Alicia Nguyen enters first, composed but wary.
Lena Serrano follows, eyes scanning everything—the architecture, the energy, the intentional shadows.
Last to enter: Maya Rosenthal, arms folded, silent.
Morgan smiles, gestures to the seats across from her.
MORGAN YATES (warm, deliberate):
“Welcome. The three of you are already part of the conversation. This is just the point where you realize it.”
She taps her tablet. A biometric lock clicks. She doesn’t waste time.
“Before we talk about structure, rhythm, w—”
She slides a slim bck folder toward Alicia and Lena.
“I need your account numbers.”
ALICIA (blinks):
“Excuse me?”
MORGAN (tilts head):
“100,000. Each.
Consider it an initial remittance—not a purchase. Not a bribe.
Just… recognition. For what you’ve already seeded in the system.”
Lena exchanges a gnce with Alicia. Maya remains still.
“You haven’t asked what we want yet,” Lena says softly.
Morgan taps again. Two soft chimes ping across Alicia and Lena’s devices.
Transaction Confirmed.
100,000 received.
Routing masked. Multiple sources.
ALICIA (voice low):
“This isn’t a partnership. It’s pressure. A velvet tether.”
MORGAN (smiling):
“No.
It’s wind at your back—because the current is moving either way.”
She leans in.
“You’ve written the rhythm. But we’ve built the instruments.
Now we’re giving you the stage.”
Lena, thoughtful but silent, begins reading the annotated DFG-FR integration manual Morgan hands her.
Alicia, more cynical, watches Morgan closely.
MAYA (finally speaking):
“The question isn’t whether they’re ready.
It’s whether you’re going to let them speak—or use them as your echo.”
MORGAN (without pause):
“If they build structure, they’ll be heard. If not… they’ll be footnotes.”
A long silence.
Then Alicia says:
“We’ll write our own terms.”
Morgan simply nods.
“Good. I’ve already allocated budget for them.”
CUT TO: INT. ELEVATOR – MOMENTS LATER
As the doors close, Alicia checks her banking app again, then gnces at Maya.
ALICIA:
“We just sold our myth.”
MAYA (softly):
“No.
You just made sure it could survive impact.”
***
6C INTERNAL STRATEGIC INSTITUTE – LOUISIANA STATE CAPITOL, LEVEL 19 – THINK LAYER STUDIO
The room is low-lit and deliberately intimate—deep gray tones, gss partitions, and a hexagonal table fitted with real-time holographic mapping. It’s a rare convergence: five women, each representing a unique spine of the 6C architecture, together for the first time.
Alicia Nguyen and Dr. Lena Serrano sit on one side, still quietly processing the undercurrents of their onboarding into the state-ideological machine. Their presence here isn't just colboration—it’s recognition.
Across from them:
Priya Varma, the wiry and exacting architect of 6C’s economic model
Ivy Thompson, the systems-minded ex-McKinsey urban pnner
Selina Vong, the cool, precise behavioral economist whose algorithms now touch nearly every femme zone
PRIYA VARMA (opening calmly):
“DFG-FR exists to measure fulfillment—not just income. It uses rhythm, access, and friction tolerance as economic assets. But economic patterns are not directly actionable. That’s where all of you come in.”
She projects a circur model:
Core Economic Layer (DFG-FR)
Spatial Anchor Layer (Ivy’s Housing Grid)
Response Feedback Layer (Selina’s Behavioral Loop)
Legal Reaction Layer (To be drafted)
Priya turns to Ivy.
IVY THOMPSON (precise, focused):
“Each housing zone is already pulsed. We know the access indexes. We know Femme Trust ratios. But until we assign legal identity to behaviors, it’s just elegant math.”
She gestures toward Lena and Alicia.
“We need soft legal triggers. Civil code micro-updates. Custody adjustments. Local licensing rhythms. You two are the bridge.”
SELINE VONG loads a holographic overy—an animation of mood-friction loops extracted from valor zones.
SELINA VONG (cool, clipped):
“We’ve tracked four dominant behavior deviations in the post-friction deployment model. Three of them fall into legally ambiguous zones.
Without your hand on the w, my data just flutters.”
She looks straight at Alicia.
“You write stability into chaos.”
And at Lena:
“You give architecture to rhythm.”
Alicia leans forward, now understanding.
ALICIA NGUYEN:
“So you don’t need new ws. You need legal drift.
Small tweaks. Loopholes that aren’t open—just widened.”
LENA SERRANO (softly, but building):
“You want the w to breathe like a muscle.
Tense when the tempo tightens. Rex when friction increases. That means modeling ws not as rules—but as behavioral agreements.”
A pause. All five women hold the tension.
Priya nods.
“Exactly. Doctrine… that flexes.”
Selina smiles faintly. Ivy’s stylus clicks in pce.
PRIYA (finishing):
“You two weren’t brought in to obey the system.
You’re here to make it sing in pces where silence used to rule.”
***
INT. CIVIC BALANCE INSTITUTE – STRATEGIC BRIEFING ROOM – BATON ROUGE.
The room is quiet, sealed. Five minds, five domains of influence, and the full legal architecture of the Polygamy Law dispyed across a curved projection wall.
Morgan Yates stands at the helm, poised in tailored gray, eyes gliding over her audience: Alicia Nguyen, Dr. Lena Serrano, Priya Varma, Ivy Thompson, and Selina Vong. The room pulses with yered awareness: legal, economic, behavioral, infrastructural, doctrinal.
MORGAN YATES (beginning):
“What you’re about to integrate is not merely a w. It’s a meta-structure—a codebase for social engineering. The Polygamy Law under 6C isn’t static. It flexes across four active sectors: legal, economic, behavioral, and communal doctrine.”
She nods toward the dispy, which is now categorized as follows:
A. Core Polygamy Rules (Access Control & Quota Structuring)
B. Wife Femme Cuse (Autonomous Female Structuring)
C. Concubines Cuse (Stratified Non-Voting Css)
MORGAN (to Alicia and Lena):
“Your role is simple—yet brutal.
You need to design legal esticity.
Cuse-by-cuse analysis. Add feedback loop mechanisms.
Every section must anticipate behavioral pushback or doctrinal conflict.”
She gestures to Selina Vong.
“Selina will identify predictive stress points in Femme Trust behavior.
Ivy will model physical integration through zoning and cohabitation grids.
Priya’s DFG-FR structure is already embedded—but she’s adding friction-responsive modifiers based on recent recalibrations.”
SELINA VONG (calmly):
“Sections B (e), B (g), and B (i) are already spiking contradictions. Women are cohabiting in Femme Groups, but child custody is becoming a legal currency, traded across unreguted emotional alliances.”
She nods toward Alicia.
“Your cuses must turn emotional withdrawal into legal signal—without punitive response cycles. Otherwise, Femme Zones colpse from emotional fatigue.”
IVY THOMPSON (pointing at B. f, B. h):
“In zones with high-density Femme Groups, men are invoking cuse B(h) in retaliation.
We need housing tiers where cohabitation rhythm aligns with legal day-count expectations. Otherwise, infrastructure breaks.”
PRIYA VARMA (adding):
“Femme asset ownership cuses (B.f) are already reshaping regional economic mobility. If too many Femme Groups are voided due to cuse B.g [dominance], we risk massive drops in DFG-FR fulfillment ratings.”
MORGAN (to Alicia and Lena, voice sharp but controlled):
“I need proposals within 10 days for three things:
Micro-amendments to stabilize custody transitions (esp. B.i & C.d)
Cuse-based legal thresholds for Femme Group protection without stifling autonomy
Definitions of "Dominant Member" that don’t trigger mass Femme Group invalidation”
She slides two small bck folders across the table. Inside: untraceable payment confirmations for 100,000 each.
ALICIA (coolly):
“You’re giving us knives to fix what might already be bleeding.”
MORGAN (without blinking):
“Then cut carefully.
Because every cuse you ignore becomes a fracture in a doctrine that has already begun to believe itself eternal.”
The meeting ends in silence—purposeful, seismic silence.
***
CBI DRAFTING STUDIO – SOUNDPROOF ROOM, WEST WING – NIGHT
Two digital tables. No windows. No distractions.
Alicia Nguyen, still in a muted navy suit, sharp brows knit in hyperfocus, taps cuse structures one by one.
Dr. Lena Serrano sits beside her, sleeves rolled up, transting behavioral esticity into probabilistic logic nodes. Between them, three primary problem zones glow on the screen:
FOCUS AREA A – B(i) CUSTODY TRANSFER LOOP
Cuse: Child custody belongs to the Femme Group that a wife joins. The custody is returned to the husband once she is divorced, after 1 year, unless she remarries within that period.
ALICIA:
“This cuse turns custody into leverage. It creates strategic marriage/re-marriage cycles just to dey custody reversal.”
LENA:
“So we embed a Stability Condition Tag—behavioral metrics that define whether custody ‘flips’ automatically, or remains in limbo under a judge-coded review.”
PROPOSAL:
Insert “Stability Continuity Review (SCR)” in B(i)
Threshold: Femme Group must show 90-day continuity in care routines for custody to be maintained past divorce
Embed into judicial discretion matrix for edge cases
FOCUS AREA B – B(g) SECRET ARRANGED MARRIAGES
Cuse: Wives can secretly pre-arrange to marry a husband without the husband’s knowledge.
ALICIA:
“This cuse looks poetic, but it’s a chaos generator for men’s legal expectations. Undermines asset consent ws.”
LENA:
“Propose an Intent Affidavit Dey—the marriage holds, but asset co-signature rights are frozen for 60 days.”
PROPOSAL:
Insert subsection under B(g): Asset Quarantine Provision
Assets cannot be pooled or co-owned until 60 days post-registration, unless the husband submits a “Retroactive Consent Waiver”
FOCUS AREA C – B(g)/B(h) Femme Group Stability & Consent Enforcement
Cuse B(g): Any decision in Femme Group can be void if there are Dominant Members
Cuse B(h): Husbands can withdraw wives who don’t comply with cohabitation & sex obligations
LENA (tight voice):
“This isn’t policy. This is ecosystem colpse waiting to happen.”
ALICIA:
“Then turn dominance into a measured attribute.”
PROPOSAL:
New Legal Term: Retional Equity Index (REI):
Femme Groups scored quarterly based on intra-group parity measures
Only Femme Groups below REI score 0.7 can be investigated for dominance voiding
INT. SYSTEMS SIMULATION SUITE – LEVEL 17, LOUISIANA CAPITOL – THE NEXT MORNING
Selina Vong, Ivy Thompson, and Priya Varma sit before a circur projection dome, loaded with simutions across 20 6C states.
They input the proposed legal-flex overys from Alicia and Lena.
SIMULATION 1: MISSISSIPPI (LOW-MEQ ZONE, HIGH FEMME GROUP DENSITY)
OUTPUT:
17% reduction in Femme Group invalidations
11% increase in joint custody equilibrium
MAI scores hold steady, MEQ fluctuation reduced
SIMULATION 2: OHIO (URBAN-POLYGAMY ZONE)
OUTPUT:
Post-divorce custody cycles shift from 16-month limbo average to 7.4 months
Marriage fraud indicators drop by 9% due to Affidavit Dey buffer
Concubine exit instability rate down by 6%
SIMULATION 3: KENTUCKY (FEMME-DOMINANT)
OUTPUT:
REI mechanism triggers self-audits in 23% of Femme Groups
Dominance-based voiding drops by 41%
Increased harmony index without central override
SELINA (to Ivy and Priya):
“They didn’t just bandage the system.
They made w breathe in rhythm.”
IVY:
“And now… infrastructure can follow the pulse instead of chasing the rupture.”
PRIYA (smiling faintly):
“So we let the Dyad draft doctrine—and two jurists turned it into design.”
***
