Rule: the affirmative info-asymmetry article's seam is inward decisions, not build-vs-own — that is the prior briefs' job

Rule. When this brief is turned into an article, the spine is "which inward decisions does a proprietary information advantage change, and why is the uninformed competitor disadvantaged?" — NOT "should you build / own data?" The latter is the existing trio's job (Research brief: Public data as a private moat — building proprietary intelligence from government open data (piece 11 of 15), Research brief: The Dataset is the Product — when a service business should own its data (piece 12 of 15), Research brief: live data and data-driven tools for SMBs — when it's an edge, when it's overkill (June 2026)).

Why. Re-deriving the build-vs-own argument duplicates work already done in the prior briefs and dilutes the affirmative thesis. The seam is intentional: cautionary briefs on the left, this affirmative brief on the right, both sharing the same source-discipline.

How to apply. Open the article with the Akerlof / Stigler spine (Akerlof 1970 — "The Market for Lemons"; asymmetric information can collapse markets (Nobel 2001), Stigler 1961 — "The Economics of Information"; costly search produces price dispersion (JPE 69:213-225)) and the five-domain framework (Synthesis: the five inward decisions a proprietary information advantage actually changes). Reference the prior briefs in a single seam-note paragraph; do not restate their arguments. End with the four threshold conditions (Rule: three thresholds before claiming an information edge — volume to clear noise, clean data, an actual decision someone will act on (and timeliness before commoditisation)) and the rent-not-moat framing (Rule: treat any documented information edge as temporary rent, not permanent moat).