Proportional Stability Diagnostic Protocol (PSDP-1.0)

Authors: Jordan Vallejo and the Transformation Management Institute Research Group

Status: Technical Monograph | October 2025

Overview

The Proportional Stability Diagnostic Protocol (PSDP-1.0) is a diagnostic measurement protocol for estimating interpretive stability within a declared meaning system using Meaning System Science (MSS) variables.

PSDP evaluates whether stabilizing conditions remain proportionate to the rate of unresolved inconsistency accumulation over a declared time window. It produces a bounded, artifact-grounded estimate of proportional stability using the Proportional Stability Index (PSI) defined in The Physics of Becoming (A4).

PSDP is a diagnostic instrument, not a governance doctrine. It does not adjudicate authority, legitimacy, authorization, or regime status. Those classifications occur at binding and are defined in the canonical definition pages for Meaning Regimes (PCMR / DMR).

0. Scope and Authorization

0.1 What PSDP Does

PSDP measures:

• Truth Fidelity (T)

• Signal Alignment (P)

• Structural Coherence (C)

• Drift rate (D)

• Affective Regulation (A) (reported separately)

It computes:

PSI = T × P × C / D

PSDP also reports diagnostic failure-mode indices (Constraint Failure and Closure Failure) as structural indicators, not causal explanations.

0.2 What PSDP Does Not Do

PSDP does not:

• determine legitimacy or authorization

• classify meaning regimes

• validate correctness or moral standing

• replace governance judgment

• infer causality without structural evidence

PSDP produces bounded diagnostic estimates, not decisions.

1. Assessment Run Declaration

Every PSDP run begins with four mandatory declarations. Without these, results are non-comparable.

1.1 Required Declarations

• System Object
  The meaning system under assessment (organization, function, workflow, product line).

• Boundary Statement
  What is inside and outside the assessed meaning system.

• Membership Condition
  Who or what may generate, modify, or finalize governing meaning within the boundary.

• Evaluation Window
  The time interval over which artifacts are sampled and normalized.

These declarations define the system-object to which all measurements apply.

2. Coupling and Interface Declaration (If Applicable)

PSDP supports both single-system and coupled-system analysis.

2.1 Coupling Classification

• Single system

• Coupled system

If coupled, the run must declare:

• Primary interfaces

• Interface direction: Inbound | Outbound | Bidirectional

• Dominant coupling type:

  • Reference

  • Signal

  • Pathway

  • Cadence

  • Authority

Coupling declarations must be supported by at least one interface artifact or interface-linked interpretive event unless access is restricted.

3. Indicator Set Doctrine

3.1 Core Indicator Set

Unless explicitly declared otherwise, PSDP uses the Core Indicator Set, the minimum indicator subset required to estimate T, P, C, D, and A with acceptable comparability.

3.2 Modified Indicator Sets

If substitutions are made:

• substitutions must be declared

• coverage must be reported

• comparability class is downgraded unless prior baselines used the same set

No imputation is permitted.

4. Variable Definitions and Computation

4.1 Truth Fidelity (T)

Definition
The degree to which reference conditions, evidence, and decision rationales remain reconstructable and usable across roles and time.

Unit
0–1 integrity estimate

Aggregation
Geometric mean of normalized T indicators

4.2 Signal Alignment (P)

Definition
The degree to which authority signals, incentives, and instructions converge on shared reference conditions.

Unit
0–1 integrity estimate

Aggregation
Geometric mean of normalized P indicators

4.3 Structural Coherence (C)

Definition
The integrity and usability of pathways that route interpretation, decision, correction, and closure.

Unit
0–1 integrity estimate

Aggregation
Geometric mean of normalized C indicators

Topology (Reporting Lens)
Topology zones may be declared to compare interpretive variance across segments. Topology is descriptive, not computational.

4.4 Drift Rate (D)

Definition
The post-crystallization rate at which unresolved inconsistencies accumulate faster than correction and integration capacity.

Unit
0.05–1.00 rate estimate

Inputs

• Observable recurrence of contradictions

• Correction backlog growth

• Re-interpretation of settled baselines

• Escalation recurrence

Computation
Drift is estimated from artifact series. It is not inferred from T, P, or C.

4.5 Affective Regulation (A)

Definition
The system’s capacity to sustain correction quality and update discipline under consequence and load.

Unit
0–1 integrity estimate

Status
Reported as a companion variable.
Not included in PSI computation.

5. Proportional Stability Index (PSI)

PSDP computes:

PSI = T × P × C / D

5.1 Interpretation of PSI

PSI is:

• a comparative diagnostic indicator

• meaningful only within the declared boundary and window

• sensitive to proportional imbalance

PSI is not:

• legitimacy

• authorization

• moral evaluation

• regime classification

A lower PSI indicates increasing proportional strain; a higher PSI indicates stabilizers remain proportionate to drift rate.

6. Diagnostic Failure-Mode Indices

Failure-mode indices do not modify PSI.

6.1 Constraint Failure (KF)

Definition
Shared evaluation constraints are under-specified or unenforceable such that incompatible interpretations proliferate.

Unit
0–1 integrity estimate

6.2 Closure Failure (CF)

Definition
Revision permeability is restricted such that contradictions cannot route to authorized correction, increasing persistence of inconsistency.

Unit
0–1 integrity estimate

6.3 Failure-Mode Classification

• Constraint-dominant

• Closure-dominant

• Mixed-mode

• No dominant mode

These classifications are diagnostic signatures, not causal attributions.

7. Evidence Requirements (MVES)

A PSDP run is deployable only when Minimum Viable Evidence Standards (MVES) are met.

Required Evidence

• decision and correction logs

• reference artifacts with history

• closure outcomes

• correction routing traces

• interface artifacts (if coupled)

If MVES is not met, the run is reported as Discovery Mode only.

8. Normalization and Aggregation Doctrine

• All primary variables aggregated by geometric mean

• Indicator floor: 0.05

• No imputation

• Coverage reported per variable

• Comparability class declared:

  • Strict Comparable

  • Partial Comparable

  • Non-Comparable

9. Output Profile

Each PSDP run produces:

A. Variable Estimates
T, P, C, D, A

B. Proportional Stability Index
PSI (raw)
PSI_norm (0–1)
PSI_10 (0–10)

C. Failure-Mode Indices
KF, CF, classification

D. Distribution Outputs
Topology variance (if declared)

E. Coupling Outputs
Interface summary (if applicable)

F. Measurement Integrity Outputs
Coverage, comparability class, confidence level

10. Required Bounded Attribution Statement

Each run concludes with:

Given boundary X, membership condition Y, evaluation window Z, and coupling status K, the observed proportional stability is most consistent with ___, with confidence ___ based on coverage and comparability.

This statement constrains interpretation and prevents overreach.

11. Minimal Execution Procedure

1. Declare boundary, membership, evaluation window

2. Classify coupling and interfaces (if applicable)

3. Declare indicator set and topology zones

4. Collect artifacts and logs

5. Score indicators and record coverage

6. Compute T, P, C, D, A, PSI, KF, CF

7. Report outputs and bounded attribution

Canonical Placement

• A2 defines variables and system class

• A4 defines the proportional stability constraint

• PSDP-1.0 measures proportional stability

• A7 explains forces, dynamics, and failure propagation

• B4 explains temporal behavior after crystallization

PSDP is the measurement bridge.

Citation

Vallejo, J. (2025). The Proportional Stability Diagnostic Protocol (PSDP-1.0).TMI Technical Monograph Series. Transformation Management Institute.