In Interaction-based economics, definitions determine what qualifies as an interaction, what records are admissible as evidence, and how interdependent actions are rendered into strategic and institutional objects. Definitions in this domain operate at the level of rule-governed relations among agents, fixing evidentiary admissibility prior to aggregation or system-level analysis.
1. Definitions Fix the Boundary of What Counts as Evidence
In Interaction, definitions determine which events qualify as interactions.
Only events involving explicit strategic interdependence—such as offers, bids, trades, messages, or allocations governed by shared rules—are admissible as evidence. Isolated individual actions and aggregate system outcomes are excluded by definition.
Universal pattern (Interaction):
Evidence exists only where agents’ actions are mutually dependent.
2. Definitions Are Operational, Not Merely Linguistic
Interaction definitions specify procedures and rules, not descriptions.
Concepts such as “market,” “mechanism,” “auction,” or “strategy” exist only through explicitly defined rules of play, information structures, and admissible actions. Terms lacking an operational interaction protocol cannot function as evidence.
Universal pattern (Interaction):
To define an interaction is to define its governing rules.
3. Definitions Anchor Measurement and Units
In Interaction, definitions fix the meaning of relational units.
Units such as prices, quantities exchanged, bid increments, spreads, or payoffs derive their meaning from the defined interaction structure. Redefining the interaction necessarily reinterprets all associated measurements.
Universal pattern (Interaction):
Relational measurements inherit meaning from interaction definitions, not from numerical form.
4. Definitions Reduce Ambiguity to Enable Comparison
Definitions in Interaction eliminate ambiguity between unilateral behavior and strategic response.
Comparability across settings requires shared definitions of roles, timing, information, and admissible actions. Apparent empirical disagreement frequently reflects incompatible interaction definitions rather than conflicting observations.
Universal pattern (Interaction):
Disputes in interaction evidence usually trace to divergent rule definitions.
5. Definitions Encode Theoretical Commitments
Interaction definitions embed strategic and institutional assumptions.
They encode commitments regarding information symmetry, equilibrium concepts, incentive compatibility, and admissible strategies. Defining an interaction commits the analysis to a specific strategic architecture.
Universal pattern (Interaction):
Every interaction definition reveals assumptions about strategic dependence.
6. Definitions Enable Classification and Taxonomy
In Interaction, definitions enforce role-based and institutional classification.
Roles (buyer, seller, principal, agent), mechanisms, and institutional forms exist only through definitional membership rules. Classification collapses when roles or mechanisms are loosely specified.
Universal pattern (Interaction):
Interaction taxonomy depends on strict definitional boundaries.
7. Definitions Control Scope and Scale
Interaction definitions fix participation boundaries and temporal structure.
They determine who may participate, when interaction begins and ends, and how sequences of actions are segmented. Scale errors—such as collapsing repeated play into a single interaction—distort strategic inference.
Universal pattern (Interaction):
Definitions determine the temporal and relational scale of interaction analysis.
8. Definitions Precede Hypotheses
Hypotheses in Interaction test relationships between defined strategies, rules, and outcomes.
Without precise interaction definitions, strategic hypotheses are ambiguous or untestable. Definitional closure is therefore required before modeling or estimation.
Universal pattern (Interaction):
Strategic hypotheses presuppose fully specified interaction definitions.
9. Definitions Are Stabilized Through Consensus, Not Proof
Interaction definitions stabilize through analytical and institutional adoption.
They persist because they support implementable mechanisms and tractable analysis, not because they are empirically proven. Redefinition reflects changes in strategic or institutional focus.
Universal pattern (Interaction):
Interaction definitions evolve through practice, not falsification.
10. Definitions Mediate Between Observation and Theory
In Interaction, definitions convert observed exchanges into strategic objects.
Transaction records become strategies, equilibria, or mechanism outcomes only through defined mappings. This mediation enables formal strategic analysis while excluding non-conforming events.
Universal pattern (Interaction):
Definitions form the interface between observed interaction and strategic theory.