metadata (Normative)

Title:	Governance Axes as a Multi-Dimensional Diagnostic Lens
Author:	Ralph B. Holland
Affiliation:	Arising Technology Systems Pty Ltd
Publication Date:	2026-02-15T00:00Z
Version:	1.0.0
Binding:	normative

Governance Axes as a Multi-Dimensional Diagnostic Lens

Abstract

The Governance Failure Axes were originally introduced as a taxonomy for identifying recurrent governance breakdowns in AI-mediated and institutional systems. In that formulation, failure represented the primary observable condition along each axis. This paper generalises the axes beyond failure states and formalises them as governance-relevant dimensions within a multi-dimensional diagnostic lens.

Scope (Normative)

This document contains both normative and descriptive material.

Only sections explicitly marked as 'Normative' SHALL be binding for purposes of conformance, implementation, or machine interpretation.

All other sections are Descriptive and SHALL NOT:

impose conformance requirements,
override normative invariants,
introduce implicit constraints,
modify binding definitions,
or be treated as machine-interpretable governance logic.

Normative content SHALL be interpreted strictly according to the invariants and SHALL statements contained within sections explicitly designated as normative.

This Scope section itself is normative.

Introduction

The Governance Failure Axes were originally articulated to identify recurrent governance breakdowns observed in AI-mediated systems and institutional environments. These axes were derived from documented patterns of instability, drift, authority inversion, state discontinuity, and related governance sensitivities. In the initial formulation, failure represented the most visible and analytically tractable condition along each axis, and the framework was therefore presented in terms of breakdown detection.

Subsequent application of the axes across technical, organisational, and institutional domains has demonstrated that their utility extends beyond failure identification. The axes consistently function as stable interpretive dimensions through which governance conditions may be described, compared, and reasoned about — including states that do not constitute breakdown. This observation motivates a conceptual clarification: the axes themselves are governance-relevant dimensions, while failure represents one extremal condition along those dimensions.

This paper formalises that clarification. Each axis is treated as a dimension admitting multiple observable states, including stability, accumulation of governance pressure, amplification, interaction effects, and breakdown. The dimensional structure allows governance conditions to be analysed prior to failure, and enables structured reasoning about design, planning, institutional alignment, and systemic behaviour without requiring collapse as the primary diagnostic trigger.

Importantly, this extension does not alter the empirical grounding of the original failure cases, nor does it weaken their diagnostic value. Rather, it generalises the interpretive geometry of the framework. The Governance Axes are reframed as a schema-agnostic diagnostic lens: a portable vocabulary for structured governance reasoning across domains. The framework does not impose measurement regimes, scoring systems, or ontological commitments. It provides dimensional clarity while leaving methodological choices to the practitioner.

A refinement of the Social Coordination (Sc) axis is included to clarify its structural role in collective epistemic mediation, ensuring that the dimensional framing remains conceptually coherent across both technical and socio-institutional contexts.