PulseExploreJournal ClubDebatesTrendingResearchersJournals
Instagram
HomeExploreJournal ClubTrending
Synapse
⌘+K
Synapse
March 17, 20260 citationsOpen Access

Insitution Control Architecture: Authority Flow, Governance Drift, and System Coherence

View Full Paper
SHSaida Harle

Key Points

  • This research aims to explore how institutional failures are influenced by authority modulation within a control-theoretic framework.
  • Developed a theoretical framework based on control theory and dynamical systems.
  • Identified five interacting properties that define institutional behavior.
  • Introduced the GATR operator to model authority interactions.
  • Highlighted two forms of systemic drift: epistemic drift and governance drift.
  • Demonstrated how local coherence can deviate from institutional intent.
  • Provided a new way to analyze hidden risks in institutional frameworks.

Abstract

Institutional Control Architecture (ICA) introduces a control-theoretic framing of institutional governance, modeling organizations as authority-modulated dynamical systems. Rather than interpreting governance breakdowns primarily as failures of policy, compliance, or oversight, this framework proposes that many institutional failures arise when local operational coherence drifts away from the global reference frame of institutional intent. Drawing on concepts from dynamical systems and control theory (Åström Weick, Sutcliffe & Obstfeld, 2005), while extending it by representing interpretation as a state variable that can influence system stability and drift. A central contribution of the framework is the introduction of the GATR operator (Give–Allow–Take–Receive), which models institutional authority as a gating mechanism that modulates interactions between system properties. This representation allows governance dynamics to be expressed as authority-modulated state evolution and enables analysis of institutional drift using concepts from dynamical systems. The model distinguishes two orthogonal forms of systemic drift: epistemic drift, where the institutional frame becomes misaligned with external reality, and governance drift, where authority boundaries gradually loosen or fragment. By separating these dynamics, the framework provides a structured way to analyze hidden institutional risk, including situations where procedural compliance masks deeper systemic divergence.

Ask AI
Helpful
Bookmark
Share
View Full Paper

Cite This Study

Saida Harle (2026) studied this question.

synapsesocial.com/papers/69b8f10fdeb47d591b8c5d36https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.19026975
Ask AI
Helpful
Bookmark
Share
View Full Paper