fix: inline org-mode interlinks instead of parenthetical bare [[file:...]] links

ideas/agora-contracts.org

@@ -28,7 +28,7 @@ How it works:
 - Every transaction runs through the symbolic engine and produces a proof log
 - Any instance can verify any other instance's contract execution by replaying the proof
 
-Revenue: Transaction fee per contract execution ([[file:compute-marketplace.org][compute marketplace]]), deployment fee per verified contract, premium for certification weight.
+Revenue: Transaction fee per contract execution (see [[file:compute-marketplace.org][compute marketplace]]), deployment fee per verified contract, premium for certification weight.
 
 Comparison: Ethereum collects ~$20B/yr in transaction fees. Agora's verifiably correct contracts target the same market with a stronger value proposition. The limitation is liquidity, not technology — network effects determine adoption.
 
@@ -92,7 +92,7 @@ Revenue: Commission on each data transaction (the compute marketplace extended t
 
 ** 7. Namespace Sub-Leasing and Auction
 
-Premium usernames ([[file:agora-usernames.org][agora-usernames]]) can be sub-leased between DIDs. The registry takes a commission on each lease.
+[[file:agora-usernames.org][Premium usernames]] can be sub-leased between DIDs. The registry takes a commission on each lease.
 
 Revenue: Commission per lease transaction, auction fees for contested names, premium for verified ownership.
 

ideas/effects-growth-flywheel.org

@@ -5,7 +5,7 @@
 #+title: Effects–Growth Flywheel — How Adoption and Consequences Amplify Each Other
 #+filetags: :passepartout:strategy:growth:effects:flywheel:
 
-The effects page ([[file:triad-systemic-effects.org]]) and the growth page ([[file:growth-strategy.org]]) treated two sides of the same process as separate timelines. They are not sequential — effects do not wait for adoption to finish, and adoption does not happen before effects begin. They are interleaved at every scale. Each effect is a growth driver; each growth milestone unlocks new effects.
+The [[file:triad-systemic-effects.org][effects page]] and the [[file:growth-strategy.org][growth page]] treated two sides of the same process as separate timelines. They are not sequential — effects do not wait for adoption to finish, and adoption does not happen before effects begin. They are interleaved at every scale. Each effect is a growth driver; each growth milestone unlocks new effects.
 
 The key insight: /every systemic effect is a growth engine for the next phase/. There is no phase where effects passively happen while adoption independently proceeds.
 
@@ -69,7 +69,7 @@ The flywheel has two critical bottlenecks:
 
 1. /First regulator encodes a rule as a gate./ This is the most leveraged event in Phase 0–1. It converts growth from organic to mandatory in a single domain. Whoever reaches a regulator first — and helps them write that first gate rule — wins that domain permanently.
 
-2. /First insurer prices unverified code higher./ This is the Phase 2→3 transition. It converts growth from pull to push. The insurer does not need 1B instances to act — they need 10K instances with 2+ years of verifiable track records. The compute marketplace ([[file:compute-marketplace.org]]) provides the actuarial data; the attestation marketplace ([[file:agora-contracts.org]]) provides the reputation layer.
+2. /First insurer prices unverified code higher./ This is the Phase 2→3 transition. It converts growth from pull to push. The insurer does not need 1B instances to act — they need 10K instances with 2+ years of verifiable track records. The [[file:compute-marketplace.org][compute marketplace]] provides the actuarial data; the [[file:agora-contracts.org][attestation marketplace]] provides the reputation layer.
 
 * Summary: Effects and Growth Are the Same Curve
 

ideas/revenue-hub.org

@@ -11,7 +11,7 @@ This page is the entry point for revenue generation thinking across all three tr
 
 ** Logos (the mind) — Revenue streams
 
-Existing coverage ([[file:verification-appliance.org]], [[file:domain-gate-packages.org]], [[file:evaluation-harness.org]], [[file:compute-marketplace.org]], [[file:verified-skill-marketplace.org]]):
+Existing coverage — [[file:verification-appliance.org][Verification appliance]], [[file:domain-gate-packages.org][Domain gate packages]], [[file:evaluation-harness.org][Evaluation harness]], [[file:compute-marketplace.org][Compute marketplace]], [[file:verified-skill-marketplace.org][Verified skill marketplace]]:
 
 | Stream | Phase | Description |
 |--------+-------+-------------|
@@ -57,7 +57,7 @@ Key insight: Stoa does not need the full Lisp Machine to generate revenue. Stoa
 
 ** Agora (the society) — Revenue streams
 
-Existing coverage ([[file:agora-usernames.org]], [[file:pds-as-a-service.org]], [[file:compute-marketplace.org]]):
+Existing coverage — [[file:agora-usernames.org][Agora usernames]], [[file:pds-as-a-service.org][PDS as a service]], [[file:compute-marketplace.org][Compute marketplace]]:
 
 | Stream | Phase | Description |
 |--------+-------+-------------|

ideas/time-estimates.org

@@ -5,7 +5,7 @@
 #+title: Development Velocity and Timeline Estimates
 #+filetags: :passepartout:economics:development:timeline:velocity:orders-of-magnitude:
 
-The orders-of-magnitude time framework ([[file:orders-of-magnitude-time.org][Orders of Magnitude — Time]]) reveals that the original single-timeline estimate conflated two qualitatively different projects. The line counts are in plausible ranges for Lisp's density (~5-10× fewer lines than C++ for equivalent functionality), but the phases differ in their feedback regimes, constraints, and failure modes. The honest picture splits into two distinct phases.
+The [[file:orders-of-magnitude-time.org][orders-of-magnitude time framework]] reveals that the original single-timeline estimate conflated two qualitatively different projects. The line counts are in plausible ranges for Lisp's density (~5-10× fewer lines than C++ for equivalent functionality), but the phases differ in their feedback regimes, constraints, and failure modes. The honest picture splits into two distinct phases.
 
 *Old estimate:* 14,000 lines total, 3-6 months to replace the full computing stack. This was wrong because it treated all phases as linear — microcode has hardware latency (seconds per cycle), GUI has user-testing latency (days per iteration), and the browser alone is a years-scale project if done natively. The numbers do not add linearly across orders of magnitude.
 

ideas/triad-systemic-effects.org

@@ -5,7 +5,7 @@
 #+title: Triad — Systemic Effects Over Time
 #+filetags: :passepartout:strategy:effects:geopolitics:society:
 
-The triad ([[file:triad-overview.org][Logos + Stoa + Agora]]) is not a product in an existing category. Verified infrastructure is a new category, and every existing category — cloud, AI, OS, social, payments, compliance, governance — eventually migrates into it because the alternative becomes indefensible.
+The [[file:triad-overview.org][triad (Logos + Stoa + Agora)]] is not a product in an existing category. Verified infrastructure is a new category, and every existing category — cloud, AI, OS, social, payments, compliance, governance — eventually migrates into it because the alternative becomes indefensible.
 
 Using the [[file:orders-of-magnitude-time.org][orders-of-magnitude framework]], the effects cascade across time scales. Each scale is qualitatively different, not just more of the same.
 
@@ -21,7 +21,7 @@ The effect compounds: proof repositories accumulate lemma libraries across field
 
 The first enterprise that replaces a SOC2 audit with a gate rule saves $500K and two weeks. The Big Four consulting revenue in GRC (governance, risk, compliance) starts eroding — first at the margins (automated control testing), then structurally (the entire audit function).
 
-Gate rule packages ([[file:domain-gate-packages.org]]) sell to the same CISO who buys audit prep today. The difference: audit prep is a cost center; gate rules are an investment that compounds.
+[[file:domain-gate-packages.org][Gate rule packages]] sell to the same CISO who buys audit prep today. The difference: audit prep is a cost center; gate rules are an investment that compounds.
 
 ** Political: regulation becomes executable
 
@@ -39,7 +39,7 @@ This shifts the entire AI safety discourse. The question stops being "what shoul
 
 ** Social: institutional trust gives way to computational trust
 
-/I verified it/ replaces /I trust the auditor/. DIDs make platform-owned identity look like a historical anomaly. The PDS model ([[file:pds-as-a-service.org]]) makes surveillance advertising technically impossible without the user's active consent gate.
+/I verified it/ replaces /I trust the auditor/. DIDs make platform-owned identity look like a historical anomaly. The [[file:pds-as-a-service.org][PDS model]] makes surveillance advertising technically impossible without the user's active consent gate.
 
 The social contract around data shifts: companies don't own user data because the architecture literally prevents them from accessing it without a permission gate. The GDPR model (notice + consent) was a regulation trying to fix bad architecture. The PDS model is architecture that makes bad behaviour impossible.
 
@@ -61,7 +61,7 @@ The switching cost to unverified infrastructure becomes infinite. No enterprise
 
 ** Geopolitical: compute becomes a strategic asset
 
-The compute marketplace ([[file:compute-marketplace.org]]) becomes a geopolitical asset on the order of SWIFT or the dollar. Whoever provisions the largest verified compute capacity becomes the default infrastructure provider for any nation that wants verified digital sovereignty.
+The [[file:compute-marketplace.org][compute marketplace]] becomes a geopolitical asset on the order of SWIFT or the dollar. Whoever provisions the largest verified compute capacity becomes the default infrastructure provider for any nation that wants verified digital sovereignty.
 
 The triad is inherently anti-surveillance-capitalist architecture. The PDS model does not do bulk surveillance. This makes it threatening to both:
 
@@ -72,7 +72,7 @@ The nations that adopt verified infrastructure are in one economic sphere. The n
 
 ** Political: liquid democracy infrastructure at scale
 
-Verifiable proxy voting, delegation chains, quadratic funding for public goods ([[file:agora-contracts.org]]) — these are not experiments. They become infrastructure that nation-states adopt because the alternative (unverifiable voting, opaque governance) becomes indefensible.
+Verifiable proxy voting, delegation chains, quadratic funding for [[file:agora-contracts.org][public goods (Agora contracts)]] — these are not experiments. They become infrastructure that nation-states adopt because the alternative (unverifiable voting, opaque governance) becomes indefensible.
 
 The effect is not that democracy becomes digital. The effect is that /trust in institutions/ becomes a measurable property rather than a polling number. Did the government follow its own rules? The proof log says yes or no. This is the political equivalent of the scientific reproducibility shift: institutions that can produce proof logs are trusted; institutions that cannot are not.