There’s a difference between not working and being accepted.
The Three Principles of Happiness currently face institutional delay rather than logical flaws—similar to the historical reception of heliocentrism, relativity, continental drift, and Galois theory. This delay stems from the structural exclusion within academic evaluation systems toward “non-orthodox methodologies,” known as “instrumental origin bias”: judging theories based on their source or authorship rather than the quality of their arguments.
To address this institutional delay, I propose two institutional designs grounded in the Three Principles of Happiness: a reform proposal for doctoral education and a new paradigm for the academic ecosystem. The core objective of these designs is to protect paradigm innovation from being suppressed by conservative forces—a goal that stands independently of the acceptability of the Three Principles themselves. The theoretical tools employed draw upon the principles to provide a normative framework. Even if readers do not yet accept the principles, specific institutional claims such as “argument evaluation over textual provenance” and “protection of paradigm innovation” can still be justified through their internal logic.