docs(docs): add bidirectional cultural mixing guideline to migration pressure doc

Corridors are migration tendencies, not ethnic boundaries. Cross-corridor heritage at any hop distance is normal and expected. Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 4.6 <noreply@anthropic.com>
2026-03-14 16:32:57 +01:00
parent 2aa7f7c6e7
commit a31aaaa8d4
1 changed files with 2 additions and 0 deletions
@@ -41,6 +41,8 @@ The result is corridors, not blocks. A cultural corridor means the dominant cult

 Critically: not every system in a corridor needs a cultural identity at all. Systems can share any combination of culture, politics, and economics with their neighbours — or none. A democratic mining system next to a democratic Australian-heritage mining system: same politics, same economy, different cultural flavour. A Portuguese-heritage fishing world next to an unlabelled transit hub: different culture, different economy, but both Assembly-compliant. The axes are independent. A corridor might be 40-50% culturally inflected, 20-30% sharing politics or economics with neighbours but culturally generic, and the rest exceptions or mixed. All patterns track mixed, never exclusively.

+Cultural mixing is bidirectional. A Chinese founding family on the Commonwealth (north) axis is normal — not an exception that needs special explanation. A Welsh mining cooperative in east_reach is normal. A Nigerian trading post in west_reach is normal. People followed economic opportunity, corporate contracts, and personal connections across all corridors regardless of the dominant cultural stream. The corridor identity describes which heritage is *most common* along a path, not which heritage is *allowed*. At inner hops (3-5) especially, where corporate and institutional settlement dominates, cross-corridor heritage is as common as corridor-dominant heritage. The corridor signal strengthens outward but never reaches monoculture.
+
 ---

 ## Part 1: The Four Cultural Corridors