Your corrective institution has lost alignment
The institution was founded to remedy a real wrong. Over time, it has grown, expanded its mandate, and accumulated authority. But critics say it has overreached. Defenders say the mission is incomplete. Both might be right. This is legitimacy drift.
The outcome we're working toward:
Corrective authority that stays connected to empirical conditions—legitimate and bounded.
You're experiencing this if:
These aren't necessarily failures—they're symptoms of legitimacy drift that requires architectural response.
The Diagnosis
Corrective institutions follow a predictable trajectory: founding legitimacy gives way to success accumulation, mission creep, feedback resistance, and eventually brittleness or collapse.
This isn't inevitable—it's the result of missing architectural safeguards. Without revalidation windows, symmetry requirements, sunset operators, and protected feedback channels, corrective institutions tend toward permanent authority regardless of whether the original wrong persists.
The challenge is that stakeholders with grievance-based authority benefit from grievance persistence. This isn't corruption—it's a structural incentive problem. Resolution would destroy accumulated political and economic value. Architecture must address these incentives, not just the claims.
The Framework
What we've developed and want to test.
Legitimacy-Grievance Framework
A structural framework for governing corrective institutions across time. It provides diagnostic instruments for measuring legitimacy drift—Grievance Half-Life, Legitimacy Decay Rate, Asymmetry Index, and Feedback Suppression Ratio. It then provides architectural safeguards that maintain legitimacy while preventing drift.
Status: Framework developed. Seeking pilot implementations to test and refine.
Diagnostic Instruments
- Grievance Half-Life: How quickly claims decay without reinforcement
- Legitimacy Decay Rate: How fast institutional authority erodes
- Asymmetry Index: How different groups experience the institution
- Feedback Suppression: How criticism is treated by the institution
Architectural Safeguards
- Revalidation Windows: Scheduled periods for re-evidencing claims
- Symmetry Requirements: Similar claims treated similarly
- Sunset Operators: Automatic termination without renewal evidence
- Protected Feedback: Criticism channels that can't be captured
What piloting involves
- Mapping your institution's legitimacy drift trajectory
- Applying the Moral Fragility diagnostic instruments
- Designing revalidation windows and sunset operators
- Testing symmetry requirements and protected feedback channels
What we need from you
- A corrective institution facing legitimacy challenges or polarisation
- Leadership willing to honestly assess mission drift
- Access to founding documents and historical decision patterns
- Commitment to implementing architectural safeguards (6-12 months)
Good pilot candidates
The Research Behind This
Working papers that develop these ideas in depth.
Interested in piloting?
If your corrective institution is facing legitimacy challenges or polarisation, we'd like to talk. No fees for pilots—just commitment and honest feedback.
Explore a Pilot Partnership