The proposition
Individual productive capital may require collective rules to remain genuinely worker-benefiting.
A worker can technically own a + and still be pressured to surrender all resulting productivity to the employer. Ownership without bargaining power can become symbolic.
Where collective institutions fit
The collective layer could protect the rules around individual variation.
Unions, works councils or collective agreements could establish minimum principles for gain measurement, non-surveillance, Time+ conversion, portability and dispute resolution while leaving the amount of earned Time+ individual.
The tension
Common rules meet unequal augmentation profiles.
Collective bargaining works best when rules are legible and shared. Human Capital .+ produces role-specific and person-specific capability. The challenge is finding common rights without pretending outcomes are identical.
What remains uncertain
Where this argument can still fail.
What would change our thinking
The point is not to defend the Perspective forever.
If real pilots show that individual Time+ Agreements fail under bargaining asymmetry, collective protections may need to move from Perspective into Core architecture.