Epistemic Inertia and the Pre-Implementation Truth Window: Literature Positioning and Jurisdictional Claim (Companion Note to DOI 10.5281/zenodo.18683857)

Abstract This note positions the structural model of institutional lock-in and premise-reopening hazard (DOI: 10. 5281/zenodo. 18683857) within institutional economics, political economy, and governance literature. It articulates a jurisdictional claim over analytically bounded revision capacity and shock-conditioned hazard modeling, while explicitly refusing black-box, intent-based, or moralized explanations of institutional inertia. The companion model defines event time, survival-conditioned hazard, a measurable lock-in functional K (t), reversibility capital O (t), bounded institutional correction frontier (ICF), and sign-constrained falsifiable claims (∂h/∂K 0) under explicit scope conditions. This note does not provide an empirical dataset; rather, it clarifies analytical positioning, boundary regimes, identification posture, and an implementable empirical blueprint suitable for institutional governance contexts. Selected literature anchors (indicative, not exhaustive) David (1985), Clio and the Economics of QWERTY Arthur (1989), Competing Technologies, Increasing Returns, and Lock-In by Historical Events Pierson (2000), Increasing Returns, Path Dependence, and the Study of Politics Sydow et al. (2020), Organizational Path Dependence: A Process Perspective Companion model DOI: 10. 5281/zenodo. 18683857 File checksum (SHA-256): EpistemicInertiaLiteraturePositioningDOI-10. 5281-zenodo. 18707324ᵥ0. 2. pdf4e4ee8da9d4259c75507f9776255b53bff9611744d34214dcecb6b5cf3dcdfd8