Where MML fails
A model this integrated can easily become dystopian if efficiency is treated as sufficient justification. MML could create manufacturers that know where customers drive, how they behave and how much risk they represent; it could create proprietary components that remain technically repairable but cannot function without manufacturer authorisation, or exclude independent workshops through certification requirements. Insurers could translate postcode, income and behaviour into increasingly granular pricing, while a technological discontinuity could strand enormous quantities of capital.
Part 11 placed continuity inside a wider industrial opportunity. That scale makes its possible failures more consequential. MML could fail even if vehicles last longer. It could concentrate control, make customers dependent on one provider, underpay the businesses doing the work or preserve assets that should be replaced. A convincing lifecycle story is not enough to prevent those outcomes.
The model needs conditions under which it should be rejected, redesigned or stopped. Those conditions must be visible to customers, providers and capital suppliers, rather than left to the judgement of the organisation earning revenue from continued use.
The earlier chapters assigned continuing responsibilities to the Agency, the fleet owner and the Distributed Factory. Each responsibility can become a source of power over another participant. The test is whether the arrangements still serve useful mobility when their commercial incentives come under pressure.