Zero Precedent: Distributive Justice, the Welfare State, Access to Care, Retirement Age, and Inheritance Law After MSA's Collapse — A Full Survey of What Comes Next, and Why Neither This Corpus Nor Its Author Has Ground to Extrapolate an Answer

The Suppressed Axiom shows that the Mortality Symmetry Axiom's collapse removes a shared, undeclared precondition from six independent traditions simultaneously. The Odds Behind the Veil shows the same collapse reaches a contemporary, technically precise elaboration of one of them. Neither paper, nor any other paper in this corpus, states what should replace the load-bearing premise once it is gone. This paper surveys ten literatures whose received frameworks depend on exactly the premise MSA's collapse removes — distributive justice theory, welfare-state design, the ethics and economics of allocating scarce medical access, the actuarial basis of retirement age, inheritance and estate law, insurance and actuarial risk-pooling, tort law, family law, judicial and political life tenure, and dynasty trusts — and names, for each, the specific question the collapse raises that the existing literature has had no occasion to answer. It then declines to answer any of them, for two reasons this paper keeps analytically separate rather than folding into a single disclaimer. The first is a boundary this corpus has already stated: per Perez's (2025) demarcation principle and this corpus's own The Evaluative Step Not Taken, a claim of the form 'the retirement age should be X,' 'inheritance law should require Y,' or 'access should be allocated by Z' asserts the desirability of a state of affairs, which this corpus does not do in its own voice. The second reason is independent of the first and, this paper argues, more binding: even a theorist willing to take the evaluative step this corpus declines would lack, at present, any historical case to extrapolate from. Every other forward-looking claim this corpus makes — political mobilization following legitimacy erosion, elite circulation under blocked succession, institutional capture by market authority — draws on multiple prior instances of a structurally comparable event, however imperfect the analogy. A society that has permanently and knowably absorbed purchasable, discrete, non-symmetric biological mortality into its inheritance law, its retirement system, and its distributive-justice settlement has no prior instance anywhere in the documented record The Suppressed Axiom already establishes as unbroken until now. The sample size for what comes after is not small. It is zero. This paper states what remains available without that extrapolation: for each of the ten literatures, identifying which existing framework's assumption is undischarged, in the same register Section III.1 of The Suppressed Axiom identifies Rawls's and The Odds Behind the Veil identifies Valente's, is diagnostic work this corpus can and does perform. Specifying the framework that should replace the undischarged one is not, and this paper is, among other things, an explicit demonstration of where that line falls across ten literatures at once rather than one. One of the ten is not, on inspection, a new literature at all. Till Death Tear Us Apart's own Appendix H, "When the Justices Do Not Die," already applies this corpus's founding apparatus directly to the U.S. Supreme Court, in June 2026, before this paper's own discipline existed to hold it to account. This paper audits that appendix against its own standard rather than exempting it, and finds a genuine, correctable inconsistency: Appendix H's structural diagnosis of the Court's vulnerability survives; its confident predictions about why three named reform mechanisms would each fail do not, because those predictions require exactly the unavailable extrapolation Section IV describes. This corpus's standards tightened after Appendix H was written. This paper is where that tightening is first applied backward rather than only forward.