No flagship full-stack mutual demonstrating services-without-territory

The map's legal entries (no new friendly societies since 1993; DAO wrapper absent; community shares unprotected) explain why parallel institutions are hard to form, but no UK community has demonstrated the operating model either: a modern mutual providing the service stack members actually need (income-smoothing and sick pay for the self-employed, collective bargaining for care and insurance, legal defence, housing deposits, member advocacy) with member-verifiable treasuries and genuinely portable exit. The surviving friendly societies are legacy insurers; new mutual aid is informal and dissolves; platform co-ops are single-service. The gap is a working existence proof, not another report.

Legal reform follows demonstration more often than it precedes it. One visible, well-governed full-stack mutual (the book's 'services without territory' menu made British) would give the Law Commission workstreams a live client, funders a template, and 4.4m self-employed workers an alternative to falling through the welfare state's gaps.

A flagship mutual pilot: 1,000+ members drawn from an existing community (a union branch, a professional network, a large mutual-aid group), offering two or three services at launch with transparent treasury and published governance, structured within existing law (community benefit society + contractual layers) while documenting exactly where the law binds, which is the evidence the reform entries need.

// Build now: First artefact: 1,000-member community benefit society with transparent treasury, formed voluntarily within existing law.

A working existence-proof would give reformers a live client and self-employed workers an alternative, and it is buildable within existing law, but it is unresourced, operationally heavy and undated.