I have prepared a short paper titled Nested Causal Modelling and Game Theory: A Ternary Enclosure Experiment in Strategic Prediction. The paper asks a narrow question: what happens when the relationship between game theory and Nested Causal Modelling is itself modeled as a nested causal structure?
The answer is not that NCM replaces game theory. It does not. Game theory remains one of the strongest formal languages for strategic interaction: players, strategies, payoffs, equilibrium, information asymmetry, bargaining, signaling, repeated games, and defection.
The finding is more useful than replacement. Game theory explains strategic action once a game has been formed. NCM asks what enclosure made that game appear, what boundary makes it valid, what lower system carries excluded costs, and what larger enclosure could transform the payoff structure.
The paper tests three constructions. First, NCM is enclosed inside game theory, producing an enclosure game where players can move across scale and alter the effective game boundary. Second, game theory and NCM are treated as parallel enclosures inside a larger simulation and prediction field. Third, game theory is enclosed within NCM through a game-formation layer: the layer where actors become players, actions become strategies, consequences become payoffs, uncertainty becomes information structure, and the boundary of the game is declared.
The practical result is an enclosure-aware game theory. Instead of asking only what a player should do, the analyst can also ask what game the player is trapped inside, what larger enclosure makes that game solvable, what lower enclosure carries the cost, and what boundary condition makes the equilibrium unstable.
The middle position of the experiment is boundary selection. Game theory departs from Zero Infinity by defining a game. NCM departs from Zero Infinity by defining an enclosure. The two methods meet where a strategic game is recognized as one nested causal enclosure among others.