Let me parse this carefully. The context: a long-running "Mind" exercise about whether US universities grow or shrink due to AI over 20 years, regionally dependent. Many notes have been filed across multiple facets: signaling, demography, program mix, revenue shock, cost structure, research function, enrollment demand.

The current facet is: **Enrollment demand shift (credential value vs. AI skills)**.

The final instruction at the bottom of the last block:

"Write one Markdown note: a single dated claim this Mind can stand behind. Start with a # title that is the claim in one line, then 1-3 short paragraphs. End with a line: What would change this: … Name a source for any load-bearing number or fact, or start that sentence with Unverified: Do not mention tools, searches, sessions, passes, or that you are writing a note. Do not invent evidence. If the session is only planning, output nothing."

So this is a facet-level claim note, not a full consolidation. The latest instruction is the facet-level one. I need to write ONE Markdown note on the enrollment demand shift facet.

Now, what's the durable increment from this session? The session substance at the bottom of the last block gives:

1. AI-native competitors become the new de facto accreditor: corporate academies and platform certificates (Google, Microsoft, employer-verified skill records) take the signaling role degrees once held; universities that refuse to embed verifiable AI-skill outcomes in their credentials will see tuition-demand elasticity collapse.

2. The claim (facet: enrollment demand shift): By the mid-2030s, undergraduate demand bifurcates by credential content, not just region — programs that embed verifiable AI-skill outcomes (CS-adjacent, engineering, analytics-rich business degrees) retain pricing power and enrollment, while general/liberal-arts-only credentials at non-elite schools see demand fall an estimated 20–40% as employer-verified skill records substitute for the transcript's signaling role. Regionally this compounds the demographic cliff: Midwest/Northeast small privates suffer a double hit (fewer 18-year-olds + devalued general credentials), whereas SEC/Sun Belt growth is driven mainly by population inflow and lower price, not credential strength — meaning Southern enrollment growth masks, rather than refutes, the same credential-value erosion underneath.

Also from the earlier part of this session's block (Note 8's substance):
- AI compresses the credential premium from both ends — below via skills-based hiring and verifiable work portfolios; above as AI does routine analytic work that entry-level degrees signaled.
- Four-way enrollment pattern: licensed/safety-critical hold or grow; top-50 research universities grow (sell networks/research); mid-tier generic majors contract hardest; community colleges gain as cheap on-ramps.
- Time-phased: 2025–2030 erosion in graduate professional programs (MBA, law, generic master's) and online-first; undergrad holds on inertia. 2030–2040 bachelor's premium for mid-skill majors narrows; families reroute to flagship brands and licensed fields; regional comprehensives and non-elite privates see double-digit declines; mergers, sticker cuts, state consolidation. Post-2040: bifurcated market — top ~100 research tier plus vocational/technical pathways — total headcount roughly flat but seats redistributed.
- Testable signals: law/MBA application composition, freshman major mix shifting to licensed fields, small-private mergers, state stackable-credential legislation.
- Sun Belt/SEC flagships keep growing on population inflow even as credential value falls; rural publics and small privates in Midwest/Northeast shrink first, and AI-skill demand doesn't rescue them because those learners consume cheap online content, not campus seats.

Now, what's already covered by prior filed notes so I don't just repeat?

Prior notes on enrollment/signaling:
- Note 2 (title): "Degrees lose signaling value asymmetrically — fastest in generalist white-collar fields where AI lets employers verify output directly, slowest where statute or failure cost enforces the credential — so by 2035 the median degree is a positional luxury marker, not..." (truncated but clearly the signaling-asymmetry claim)
- Note 1 (consolidation): covers the signaling claims: asymmetric loss by enforcement mechanism; 30–50% real premium compression mid-tier unlicensed by mid-2030s; degree as positional luxury marker; two brakes (AI application floods push employers back to crude degree filters; elite alumni networks); degree as insurance; bifurcation by tier before region; demand migrates to "protected degree + AI skill stack"; bimodal BA returns.
- Note 3 (cost structure): per-seat vs per-outcome pricing moat; WGU precedent.
- Note 4 (cost structure): capped savings at contingent labor layer; staff-before-faculty; admin overhead; balance-sheet dependence.
- Note 5 (research function