Memorandum
I. What no engineer would do
No structural engineer begins by estimating loads. Before weight, stress, or tolerance are discussed, a more basic question is answered: what kind of structure is this?
Steel behaves differently from concrete. Concrete behaves differently from timber. Timber behaves differently from composite materials. Load calculations are meaningless until structural class is known.
II. Finance routinely inverts the order
In financial analysis, the sequence is frequently reversed. Analysts begin with growth assumptions, cash flow projections, and valuation multiples. Only afterward—if at all—do they ask whether the structure itself can sustain those assumptions.
This is not a technical mistake. It is a categorical one. When the order is inverted, the resulting analysis may appear sophisticated while remaining structurally illegitimate.
III. Admissibility is a structural condition
In engineering, some analyses are inadmissible by definition. No engineer would extrapolate stress without knowing fatigue limits, or model endurance without classifying the structure first.
Yet in finance, valuation routinely proceeds without structural classification. The result is not mere imprecision. It is false legitimacy: conclusions are treated as valid because they are numerically elaborate.
IV. The role of classification
Classification does not predict failure. It determines what kinds of claims are structurally permitted. Two structures may support identical loads under ideal conditions. Only one may endure constraint. Without classification, resilience is assumed and continuity is narrated.
V. ABSA and structural scale
ABSA treats financial structures the way engineering treats materials. Before estimating outcomes, it asks what degrees of discretion exist, what constraints are immovable, and what forms of stress are survivable. This requires a structural scale, not a forecast.
The scale precedes valuation. It does not compete with it.
Boundary Statement
This memorandum provides an analogy and a hierarchy. It does not disclose operational criteria, thresholds, triggers, or classification governance.
VI. Consequence for the investor
If structural analysis is omitted, valuation is not “aggressive.” It is inadmissible. This is why financial disagreement persists: the debate is conducted at the valuation level while the structural level remains unexamined.
ABSA exists to reintroduce that missing layer—so that valuation proceeds only where structure permits it.
ABSA does not provide investment advice and does not solicit transactions. This memorandum is interpretive doctrine only.