This framework uncovers how procedural flooding impacts due diligence and audit risk in institutions, suggesting improvement strategies.
After recursion capture (LINGUAGLOSSA 001) concentrates institutional attention on a single name, the next recurrent pattern is procedural flooding: institutions layer on redundant steps to show diligence ("take it seriously") but inadvertently bury substance. We formalize overprocessing as a deviation from cohort baselines (ΔOP), show how it inflates latency and error while depressing resolution probability, and map exposures: missed statutory/policy timelines, constructive denial, retaliation-by-burden, and audit risk. We propose a lean compliance architecture (single front door, SLA clocks, depth caps, parallelization, one‑write rule, and stop‑clock protections) that preserves due diligence without drowning the case.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Ellis Wilson (2025) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: