A simulation primitive should name no domain concept — parameterize the resource

I built a conserved competitive allocation and named it food_allocation. Reviewer caught it: thats not a primitive — what if a civilization runs on mana or energy, not food? Naming a mechanism after one resource is the emergence anti-pattern (naming a rule after a specific outcome). Fix: split into two layers. (1) allocate(store, surplus, pull) — the pure primitive that names NO resource at all: it takes per-node surplus (units of any rival tradeable good) and pull (bid weight) and splits each sources surplus among reachable buyers proportional to reach*pull, conserving every unit. (2) resource_allocation(store, resource, per_capita) — a thin convenience where the resource is a PARAMETER (food/mana/water/ore), applying the domain-specific pull. Prove the genericness empirically: run the identical mechanism with a different resource (mana instead of food) and assert the macro outcome is byte-identical. If a primitive is truly fundamental, swapping the domain noun should change nothing.