Knowledge spread: proportional secrecy cost + squared passive leak, not a cap

To model why obvious techniques (org methods) inevitably spread while deep secrets persist, do NOT put a hard cap on how secret something can be. Instead make secrecy a PROPORTIONAL MAINTENANCE COST scaled by an observability property: guarding a highly-observable method to the same secrecy level costs ~observability-times more than a hidden formula, so a rational owner does not bother and it leaks — un-hideable emerges from economics, not a ceiling. Two other things that made it work: (1) passive leak should be (1-secrecy)^2, not (1-secrecy) — that way a well-guarded secret barely diffuses by proximity and moves only through an ACTIVE channel (espionage), while an unguarded one pours out. (2) Separate two orthogonal axes that are easy to conflate: DELIBERATE transfer (can I sell/license it) vs INVOLUNTARY leak (does it spread whether I want it or not) — you can guard-and-sell, or refuse-to-sell yet still leak. Diffusion pass: rivals co-present with a holder accrue exposure at leak*observability and adopt once it crosses a threshold; secrecy decays without upkeep so unmaintained secrets erode into leaks over time.