Process Liquidity
How can an organization evaluate the adaptability of tasks and operating processes without treating automation exposure as a guaranteed operational or social outcome?
processliquidity.com§1 — Frame the question
Begin with a specific institutional decision.
Identify the jurisdiction, responsible institution, affected stakeholders, time horizon, and outcome under evaluation.
§2 — Separate evidence
Keep infrastructure, investment, skills, market, labour, resilience, and governance evidence distinct.
Use each source only for the context it actually supports and distinguish empirical findings from policy recommendations.
§3 — Test boundaries
Make uncertainty and competing outcomes visible.
Do not treat technical feasibility, exposure, adoption, productivity, employment, resilience, or welfare as interchangeable or predetermined.
§4 — Retain authority
Leave policy and implementation decisions with the responsible institution.
Public vocabulary can structure evaluation, while legal interpretation, policy design, expenditure, workforce, and implementation choices remain outside this reference.
Published Capability Crosswalkactive Capability Namespace
1 active peers, each addressing one evaluation question.
FAQ — Buyer Orientation
Frequently asked questions.
Is Industrial Policy for AI a prescribed policy platform?
No. It is a viewpoint-neutral organizing frame for distinct policy questions and evidence, not an advocacy position or legislative program.
Is Process Liquidity an established institutional term?
No. It is an LJP-defined compound term. Cited research supports narrower evidence contexts and does not define or endorse the term.
Does automation exposure mean job loss?
No. Exposure, technical feasibility, adoption, task transformation, job effects, and worker outcomes are distinct questions.
Does the EU AI Act define industrial policy?
No. European Commission material is cited only as EU policy context; it does not define industrial policy generally or the LJP package.
Credibility Boundaries
Publish the map, not the machine.
This site provides public definitions, relationships, source context, and an evaluation structure. It does not provide legal, tax, economic, labour, investment, accounting, or public-policy advice and does not prescribe legislation, regulation, subsidies, taxation, labour policy, or government expenditure. Buyers and institutions retain authority over analysis, policy design, implementation, and legal interpretation. Publication does not establish consensus, adoption, effectiveness, or institutional recognition of LJP-defined terms. LJP is not affiliated with or endorsed by the OECD, European Commission, Federal Reserve Board, ILO, or any other cited institution.
The 2 published destinations provide public orientation; qualified diligence and controlled follow-on work remain separately scoped.