The Legitimacy Diagnostic Protocol (LDP-1.0)

A Scientific Framework for Measuring Organizational Coherence

Authors: Jordan Vallejo and the Transformation Management Institute™ Research Group

Status: Working Paper No. 004 | October 2025

LinkedIn

1. The Pysics of Meaning

Every organization can feel when its meaning begins to thin.
Meetings lose coherence. Numbers outpace understanding. Work that once felt alive becomes mechanical. This is not failure of effort but loss of proportion, truth and power drifting out of sync.

Moral Physics defines legitimacy as the equilibrium that allows truth and power to act together without tearing coherence apart. The Legitimacy Diagnostic Protocol (LDP) translates that law into measurement, allowing institutions to detect the earliest traces of drift and restore proportion before collapse.

2. The Canonical Equation of Proportion

Legitimacy behaves lawfully:

  L = (T × P × C) / D

where T is Truth Integrity, P is Power Alignment, C is the Coherence Coefficient, and D is Drift.
Each term is normalized on a 0 to 1 scale and can be rescaled to 0–10 for interpretability.

Truth Integrity (T)

T = (Acc × Aud × Fid) ^ 1⁄3

Truth measures how faithfully reality is perceived, verified, and transmitted.
Accuracy captures the factual correctness of data and claims.
Auditability measures whether evidence can be independently traced or replicated.
Fidelity assesses how much meaning is lost as information travels through communication layers.
Truth Integrity represents the clarity of signal: accurate, checkable, and carried intact.

Power Alignment (P)

P = (Ali × Res × Pro) ^ 1⁄3

Power measures how proportionally authority acts on verified truth.
Alignment tracks the extent to which actions trace back to evidence.
Responsiveness measures the speed and completeness of correction.
Proportionality evaluates whether the scale of action matches the scale of evidence and risk.
Power Alignment is the discipline of action: aligned, adaptive, and right-sized.

Coherence Coefficient (C)

C = (TR × AC × TC × MC × PO) ^ 1⁄5

Coherence measures how freely truth moves through structure without distortion.
Transparency shows how visible information and decisions are.
Accountability captures whether ownership and correction are traceable.
Trust Conductivity measures the ease of truth moving up and down levels without retaliation.
Memory Continuity tracks how knowledge is preserved through time.
Purpose Orientation assesses how well members share a clear understanding of why the organization exists.
Coherence is the infrastructure of connection: see truth, answer to it, carry it, remember it, aim it.

Drift Index (D)

dD/dt = average (β₆ Catalysts) – average (γ₆ Regulators)

Drift is the rate at which meaning dissipates as moral entropy.

The six Catalysts of Drift (β) are Hubris, Paralysis, Ego, Politics, Cynicism, and Apathy. Each is scored from 0 to 1 and averaged.
The six Coherence Regulators (γ) are Humility, Courage, Feedback Quality, Safety for Dissent, Repair Cadence, and Participation Renewal. Each is also scored 0 to 1 and averaged.

When β exceeds γ, drift rises and legitimacy falls (ΔL < 0).
When γ exceeds β, drift declines and legitimacy rises (ΔL > 0).
Drift is the rate of moral disorder—pressure minus correction.

3. Measurement Protocol

Each indicator is derived from observable data and normalized to a 0–1 scale.
Percentages are divided by 100; latency measures use (Target ÷ Actual) capped at 1; survey responses are divided by their maximum value; qualitative data use semantic similarity scores.

Geometric means preserve proportion and prevent a single weak variable from dominating.
Scores are recorded quarterly to monitor ΔL and ΔD—the velocity of legitimacy and drift through time.
A simple dashboard can plot T, P, C, and D together, revealing where meaning is being created, stored, or lost.

4. Interpretation

High T × P × C means the system perceives accurately, acts proportionately, and connects freely.
Low D means entropy is controlled through humility and courage.

Scaled interpretation:
8–10 High Legitimacy – adaptive, self-correcting
6–7.9 Stable but fragile – proportion under strain
4–5.9 Low Legitimacy – drift accumulating
Below 4 Critical – truth and power decoupled

5. Entropy and Regulation

The moral thermodynamics of an organization depend on the balance between its six Drift Catalysts and six Coherence Regulators.
Hubris is cooled by Humility.
Paralysis countered by Courage.
Ego is tempered by Feedback Quality.
Politics is balanced by Safety for Dissent.
Cynicism is repaired by Repair Cadence.
Apathy is renewed by Participation Renewal.

When these forces circulate in proportion, pressure becomes learning instead of loss.
This is redemption in its scientific form: the conversion of entropy back into meaning.

6.Observation Ethics and Calibration

Because legitimacy involves conscience as well as data, its measurement must obey moral proportion.

All diagnostic work follows three non-negotiable principles:

1. Transparency — All methods and metrics must be open for review and replication.

2. Anonymity — Individual contributors are protected; only aggregate patterns are published.

3. Purpose Limitation — Findings exist for stewardship, not surveillance or control.

Calibration includes peer review, dual-rater scoring, and publication of error corrections.
Correction increases coherence; concealment decreases it.

7. Applied Use

The LDP can be applied to any initiative, department, or enterprise.
A baseline is established at the start of a transformation. Mid-project measurements reveal where drift accumulates, and post-implementation readings show whether legitimacy was conserved or lost.

Over time, each organization develops a legitimacy signature unique to its structure. When leaders see legitimacy decline, they can locate the imbalance, truth failing to inform power, power outpacing truth, or coherence failing to conduct either, and act accordingly.

Appendix A. Measurement and Normalization

Each variable in the Legitimacy Equation is derived from observable data, not opinion.
Organizations select three to five indicators per component, combining system metrics, survey items, and document evidence, and translate them into a bounded 0 to 1 scale.

Data sources. Typical indicators include audit accuracy rates, decision-log traceability, correction latency, feedback participation, process-document freshness, and alignment between mission language and employee definitions of purpose.

Normalization. All raw values are converted to proportions of an achievable ideal.
Percentages are divided by 100. Time-based measures use (Target ÷ Actual) capped at 1. Survey responses are divided by their maximum scale. Qualitative or text data use correlation or similarity scores (for example, semantic match = 0.67 → Score 0.67).

Computation. Geometric means preserve proportionality so that no single indicator overwhelms the others. Each sub-score is calculated independently, then combined into its composite variable.

Example. Accuracy = 0.84, Auditability = 0.72, Fidelity = 0.68.
T = (0.84 × 0.72 × 0.68)¹ᐟ³ = 0.74. The same process is applied for Power Alignment, Coherence, and Drift.

Cadence. Most organizations assess 30 to 200 participants per reading and repeat the protocol quarterly to monitor ΔL and ΔD —the velocity of legitimacy and drift through time.

Subjective variables. Even moral qualities such as humility or politics are scored through behavioral proxies: admission-of-error frequency, whistleblower follow-up rate, documented dissent, or approvals without evidence. Each proxy is normalized between 0 and 1, turning moral proportion into measurable ratio without losing ethical meaning.

Appendix B. Field Example

Case : Regional Insurance Cooperative — Q2 2025

Baseline assessment produced:
T = 0.76, P = 0.71, C = 0.63, D = 0.88.
 → L = (0.76 × 0.71 × 0.63) / 0.88 = 0.38 (3.8 / 10 on the scaled index).

The diagnostic review showed strong factual accuracy but weak transparency and slow upward feedback, evidence of coherence decay. Leadership introduced open dashboards, quarterly correction reviews, and anonymous dissent channels.

Three months later:
T = 0.77, P = 0.72, C = 0.75, D = 0.80.
 → L = 0.52 (5.2 / 10).

Legitimacy rose by +1.4 points as drift velocity turned negative (ΔD < 0). Employees reported higher trust and lower rework. The change validated the Protocol’s predictive claim: when coherence and humility increase, drift slows, and meaning becomes measurable again.

8. Interpretive Law and Axioms

Every system seeks coherence.
Where truth and power meet in balance, meaning endures.
All drift is temporal; coherence is rhythm kept.
Systems that apologize survive.
Only the legitimate can last.

9. Declaration of Continuity

The LDP completes the practical bridge between science and stewardship. It transforms the Law of Moral Proportion into operational law, allowing leaders to quantify something once intangible: the capacity to stay real under pressure.

Legitimacy is not a virtue to declare but a physics to obey. When truth governs power through coherence, meaning becomes self-sustaining. When they separate, drift begins. The purpose of this Protocol is to measure that distance before it becomes a collapse.

Through the Legitimacy Diagnostic Protocol, Transformation Science becomes what it was founded to be: the moral architecture of evolution and the discipline through which power remains answerable to truth.

Citation

Transformation Management Institute™ (2025). The Legitimacy Diagnostic Protocol (LDP-1.0) A Scientific Framework for Measuring Organizational Coherence TMI Research Library, Working Paper No. 004.