The concept map: the game theory behind verification, from payoff matrices to why trust needs teeth.
Twenty concepts, five threads, one through-line: every enforcement lever runs on detection. Pick the door that matches what you already know — it lights up a numbered path through the map. Click nodes, play the toys. No path takes more than 20 minutes.
or skip the paths and — every node is clickable either way
01 · Cooperation02 · Credibility03 · Compliance04 · Inspection05 · Two levels▸ = playable✓ = visited
Optional · when you're done exploring
Check yourself
Ten quick questions — drawn fresh from a bank of twenty each time, two per thread, so every area gets covered. Instant feedback, ~5 min, nothing is graded or stored.
For instructors · thread → learning objective map
| LO | Thread | The learner can… |
|---|---|---|
| LO1 | 01 · Cooperation | explain why cooperation among self-interested parties depends on repetition, detection probability, and error tolerance — and predict how noise or frequency changes destabilize it. |
| LO2 | 02 · Credibility | classify how a commitment is made credible (sunk cost, tied hands, mechanical), assess its observability and irreversibility, and judge whether it should be believed. |
| LO3 | 03 · Compliance | explain what sustains compliance absent central enforcement (reputation, reciprocity, retaliation), show each lever requires detection, and diagnose which lever bit in a historical case. |
| LO4 | 04 · Inspection | explain why optimal inspection is randomized, why the equilibrium violation rate is nonzero, and why announcing the inspection strategy improves deterrence. |
| LO5 | 05 · Two levels | map a state's ratification constraints, explain how a small win-set can be bargaining power, and distinguish voluntary from involuntary defection — and what each implies for monitoring. |
Optional primer for the Verification Track · every claim links to its source · progress is saved on this device