Flow Diagrams

Compressed system maps showing how incentives, signals, and structures actually move. Curated as they emerged.

A white directional arrow painted on a blue brick wall.
Systems reveal themselves in how things move. Direction matters. Sometimes the clearest signal is the flow itself.

Systems Flow Diagrams

Systems thinking often shows up as flow — decision points, incentives, signal paths, and where things stall or accelerate.

Sometimes the most honest way to capture a systems-related thought is not an essay, but a compressed diagram: the few steps that actually matter, laid out in sequence.

This page is a curated shelf of those diagrams, placed as they emerged.


Verification Failure Map

Date: February 9, 2026

Flow

Healthy verification, good systems (balance zone)
Quality discrimination intact →
Willingness to act intact →
Deviations detected early →
Corrections applied before harm compounds →
Trust accrues →
System stays in balance

Failure Zone 1, e.g. disinfectants: Detects, doesn’t act (selective verification)
Quality discrimination intact →
Incentives penalize intervention →
Paper passes, reality fails →
Problems persist under load →
Harm accumulates quietly →
Legitimacy theater expands →
Trust collapses when exposed

Failure Zone 2, e.g. potholes: Acts, can’t tell what works (capability drift)
Willingness to act intact →
Quality discrimination degraded or externalized →
Oversight becomes procedural →
Substitution becomes rational →
Variance rises, recurrence normalizes →
More activity, less traction →
System spends for motion, not improvement →
Trust erodes by repetition

Failure Zone 3, e.g. Flint water: System-blind and inert (catastrophic risk)
Quality discrimination degraded →
Willingness to act degraded →
Authority buffered from exposure →
Wrong signals treated as “real” →
Return path breaks →
Narrative hardens →
Remediation becomes decade-scale →
Trust debt becomes permanent infrastructure

Compression

Verification is a coupled system: the ability to discriminate quality, and the willingness to act on what you can see.

When either leg breaks, systems shift into distinct failure regimes. Fixes misfire when they target the wrong quadrant. The darkest regime combines degraded discrimination with inert response, producing catastrophic tail risk and long, irreducible trust debt.

Provenance

Originally developed as a quadrant map and published on X as a flow diagram alongside the essay The Three Regimes of System Failure. Formalized here as a reference artifact for diagnosing why “reasonable” interventions fail.

A 2×2 quadrant chart with axes “Ability to discriminate quality” (vertical, increasing upward) and “Willingness to act” (horizontal, increasing to the right). The top-right quadrant reads “Systems stay in balance.” The top-left reads “Can detect, doesn’t act” and contains a yellow oval labeled “Disinfectants.” The bottom-right reads “Acts, but can’t tell what works” and contains a yellow oval labeled “Potholes.” The bottom-left reads “System-blind and inert, catastrophic risk” and contains a yellow oval labeled “Flint Water.”
A simple map of how verification fails. The vertical axis is a system’s ability to discriminate quality. The horizontal axis is willingness to act. Three real-world failures are placed as examples: disinfectants (can detect, doesn’t act), potholes (acts, but can’t tell what works), and Flint water (system-blind and inert, catastrophic risk).

Related Essay
The Three Regimes of System Failure, How Verification Dies in Disinfectants, Potholes, and Flint Water — Systems & Soul

Related Systems-in-Action
Capability Drift Hidden in Infrastructure (potholes as a drift regime)
When AI Safety Becomes a Supply Chain (adjacent pattern: verification outsourced into vendor stacks)

Related Systems Diagnostics
Quality Discrimination Test
Action Threshold Audit
Oversight Inversion Check
Substitution Pressure Scan
Return-Path Integrity Test
Variance and Recurrence Monitor

Notes
This flow is meant to be used as a regime detector. Before debating intent or ideology, locate the failure zone. Then match the intervention to the regime: incentives and enforcement for selective verification, competence and sensing loops for capability drift, and return-path integrity for catastrophic-risk overrides.


Automation Isn’t Coming, The Evidence Is Hidden in Payroll

Date: January 24, 2026

Flow

Automation mechanizes production
Factory runs with fewer humans →
Humans migrate to edges →
Maintenance, exceptions, microscale, bespoke →

Information work automates
Databases + ERP + dashboards →
Fewer FTE needs →

But headcount is preserved →
Legibility labor + compliance production + payroll theater →
Evidence of automation is hidden in make-work jobs →

So, AI arrives as an accelerant
A faster motor on the same conveyor belt →
Skill divide deepens →
Pay concentrates in high-skill jobs →
Mid-tier becomes coast-and-roast →

Coast-and-roast: ease now, skill desiccation later.

Automation isn’t coming.
The “future wave” story is.

Compression

Automation already reduced the labor required for both production and information work. Institutions preserved equilibrium by shifting humans into edge cases and legibility labor, then narrating that equilibrium as “jobs.”

AI is the accelerant, not the first wave.

Provenance

Originally posted as a flow diagram on X.
Formalized here as a companion artifact to the essay Why Automation Isn’t Coming.

Related Essay
Automation Isn't Coming. It Already Happened and We Hid the Evidence — Systems & Soul

Related Systems-in-Action
UBI Dressed Like Work — Future of Work Series (adjacent mechanism: payroll-routed equilibrium)

Related Systems Diagnostics
Legibility Capture
Incentive Drift Analysis
Payroll Theater Detection

Notes
This flow distinguishes between core automation (production and information work) and the stabilizing layers that grow around it. When output decouples from headcount, institutions tend to preserve employment through legibility labor, compliance work, and coordination theater. AI amplifies this trend by accelerating systems that already made mid-tier labor cheaper and more redundant.


Interstitial Capture


Date
January 16, 2026

Flow

Demographic cliff →
Revenue pressure rises →
Monetize the perimeter →
P3 deals + outsourced services + app-gated access →
Ads and sponsorships saturate the “in-between” →
Interstitials fill with pings and context switches →
Low-noise, high-signal thought collapses →
Cross-domain synthesis declines →
Fewer novel connections →
Thinner outcomes →

Compression

When universities monetize the interstitial space between classes, they don’t just add distraction. They sell the cognitive corridor where synthesis forms, converting idea-generation into interrupted fragments.

Provenance

Originally developed as a standalone flow diagram on X.
Formalized as Interstitial Capture Doctrine.

Related Systems Diagnostics
Distortion Detection Test
Noise overtakes signal when every transition becomes an ad surface or app prompt.

Signal-to-Noise Diagnostic
Synthesis requires quiet corridors. Capture converts corridors into noise fields.

Cognitive Load Test
App-gated access and monetized friction add micro-demands until cognition loses working capacity for integration.

Drift Detection Test
Interstitial capture begins as “small” additions: one app, one sponsorship, one billboard. Accumulation becomes structural.

Incentive Stability Check
Incentives reward perimeter monetization (contracts, fees, sponsorship) while the cost is paid in degraded learning and idea yield.

Minimum Promise Boundary Check
Silent promise violated: a university should protect attention and learning conditions, not auction them.

Notes
Perimeter monetization looks like “services” and “support,” but functions as capture of transitional space. The loss is not easily measured in quarterly terms because it shows up as missed synthesis: fewer cross-domain insights, weaker original work, and a thinner intellectual environment. The institution gains short-term revenue and loses long-term idea production.


Attention Theft

Date
January 8, 2026

Flow
New vendor default →
User surprise →
Rollback hunt →
Work to restore baseline →
Repeat →

Compression
Defaults shift the environment. Reversal shifts the labor. The user pays the cost of restoring baseline in time and attention.

Provenance
Originally developed as a standalone flow diagram on X.
Formalized as Attention Theft Doctrine.

Related Systems Diagnostics

  • Incentive Stability Check
    The vendor incentive is stable: ship defaults that drive KPIs. User incentive is stable: preserve baseline. Collision is predictable.
  • Cognitive Load Test
    Rollback hunts push cognitive load beyond reasonable interpretability, especially when toggles are fragmented across products.
  • Drift Detection Test
    “Small drift” is the default flipping itself, the UI moving, the new surface appearing. Catching it early prevents a larger attention bleed.
  • Minimum Promise Boundary Check
    Silent promise violated: “my inbox and calendar remain mine unless I explicitly opt in.”
  • Fairness Floor Test
    Asymmetry becomes corrosive when the vendor externalizes reversal labor onto the user.
  • Elegant Restraint Test
    The upstream question the vendor avoided: should this be done at all, by default.

Notes
This pattern is not defined by the new feature. It is defined by the lack of a reversal burden, requiring detection, attribution, rollback search, and baseline restoration. The recurrence mechanism is “new surface, same default logic.” Users experience it as theft because the cost is paid in fragments of their attention, and the fragments accumulate.


Three Main Layers of Hidden UBI

Date
December 31, 2025

This work identifies three distinct mechanisms through which income and employment are stabilized without explicit universal cash transfers.

1. Local Content Requirements (LCRs)

Flow posted on X: December 30, 2025

2. Employment-Based Subsidies

Flow posted on X: December 31, 2025

3. Industry and Sector Support

Flow posted on X: December 31, 2025

These layers operate independently and often concurrently. Each stabilizes income and employment through different policy instruments, incentive structures, and institutional pathways.

Provenance

Originally developed as an index on X.

Will UBI solve issues created by AI taking jobs?
A theoretical walk
Posted on X December 5, 2025

Notes

This index names mechanisms without evaluating them. Each layer is documented separately through flow diagrams that trace causality, enabling conditions, and downstream effects.


Industry Support Programs Preserve Employment and Access

Date
December 31, 2025

Flow

Strategic industry identified →
Service deemed socially necessary →
Market demand insufficient to sustain service →
Risk of service withdrawal →
Political pressure to maintain access →

Mechanisms:
Direct operating subsidies (e.g. Essential Air Service) →
Guaranteed minimum revenue or cost coverage →
Route, service, or facility maintained despite low utilization →
Firms remain solvent without full market demand →
Industry continuity preserved →

Employment retained in supported sector →
Access maintained for constituents →
Jobs persist at industry and community levels →
Political stability reinforced

This flow describes the industry / sector support layer of hidden UBI.

Compression

Sector support stabilizes income and employment even when demand no longer sustains the service. Employment persists as a byproduct of continuity, not as a market outcome.

Provenance

Originally developed as a standalone flow diagram on X.
Formalized as part of the Systems & Soul analysis of sector-level stabilization mechanisms.

UBI Dressed Like Work — Future of Work Series

Incentive Drift Analysis
Service Continuity Test

Notes

This flow describes an industry-level stabilization mechanism in which public support flows to firms, routes, or facilities rather than directly to individuals.

Employment and income persist as downstream effects of service continuity, not as market-driven outcomes. Inefficiency is tolerated in order to preserve geographic access, sector presence, and political stability.

The structure generalizes across transportation, healthcare, agriculture, energy, defense, and other sectors where access and continuity are prioritized over utilization or profitability.


Employment-Based Subsidies Create Make-Work Stability

Date
December 31, 2025

Flow

Employment-based subsidies exist →
Constituency kept at work →
People busy and distracted →
Societal calm →
Political stability maintained →

Enabled by:

Employment-linked tax credits (e.g. WOTC, ERC) →
Direct payments (e.g. ARRA, TANF, ECS) →
Deductions (e.g. Barrier Removal Tax Deduction) →
Bonding programs (e.g. Federal Bonding Program) →

Subsidies tied to employment
Make-work created →
Jobs persist →
Personal incomes maintained →
Societal stability reinforced →

This flow describes the subsidy layer of hidden UBI.

Compression

Employment can be stabilized through subsidies tied to work, even when the work itself is not economically necessary.

Provenance

Originally developed as a standalone flow diagram on X.
Formalized as part of the Systems & Soul analysis of employment-based stabilization mechanisms.

original post, typo later corrected


UBI Dressed Like Work — Future of Work Series

Related Systems Diagnostics
Incentive Drift Analysis
Make-Work Detection Test

Notes
This flow describes the subsidy layer of hidden UBI: a mechanism in which income support is delivered indirectly through employment-linked programs rather than explicit cash transfers.

By tying financial support to job participation, these programs preserve employment statistics, absorb attention, and produce societal calm—while masking income redistribution as labor market health.

The pattern generalizes across infrastructure spending, workforce programs, accessibility compliance, and public–private employment incentives where stability is prioritized over productive necessity.


Local Content Requirements Create Make-Work Stability

Date
December 30, 2025

Flow

Local content requirements (LCRs) exist →
Domestic employment targets become a policy constraint →
Constituency kept at work →
People busy and distracted →
Societal calm increases →
Political pressure decreases →
Politicians take credit for employment stability →

Enabled by:
Fully assembled goods produced elsewhere →
Goods shipped to intermediary →
Intermediary factory disassembles finished products into parts →
Product part assemblies re-kitted for export to local market →
Kits shipped to local factory →
Products reassembled locally →
Labor counts toward LCR fulfillment →
Make-work created →

Employment preserved →
Through policy-induced inefficiency.

This is the LCR layer of hidden UBI.

Compression

With LCRs, employment is preserved not by necessity, but by policy-induced inefficiency.

Provenance

Originally developed as a standalone flow diagram on X (shown here in both original unedited and edited versions).
Formalized from Systems & Soul analysis of localization policy and make-work labor dynamics.

UBI Dressed Like Work — Future of Work Series

SIA Am I Stuck in a Bullshit Job?
SIA The Control Illusion: How Export Controls Create Shadow Chains and Destroy Containment

Incentive Drift Analysis
Traceability and Containment Test

Notes

This flow describes the LCR layer of hidden UBI: a stabilization mechanism in which employment is maintained through mandated local labor participation rather than through endogenous demand for productive work.

The structure shows how localization rules create constituencies at work, absorb attention, and produce societal calm—while shifting production into inefficient disassembly and reassembly loops that satisfy policy constraints without increasing real output.

The pattern generalizes across manufacturing, defense procurement, energy infrastructure, and other sectors subject to localization mandates where political stability is prioritized over system efficiency.


Vendorization Creates Fragility

Date
December 28, 2025

Flow

Public function exists →
Reliability matters at the point of use →

But…

Publicly needed function is vendorized →
Vendor captures demand →
Customer capture via brand-unspecific corridor monopoly →
Revenue centralized →
Maintenance authority removed from the point of use →
Failure burden externalized to intermediaries at the moment of use →

Asymmetric incentives form →
Partial reliability is sufficient for the vendor →
No impact to vendor revenue →
Downtime becomes tolerable →

Failures accumulate →
Customer frustration increases →
Users reroute to the next node →
No impact to vendor (corridor ownership) →
Vendor revenue remains intact →

Intermediaries absorb damage →
Brand harm →
Safety exposure to customers →
No repair authority →
No refund authority at point of failure →

Feedback loop breaks →
Failure visible only to the customer, not the intermediary →
Correction impossible at the moment of failure →

Fragility normalizes →
System persists →
Reliability quietly collapses while brands and customers absorb the burden.

Compression

When vendors capture demand but externalize failure, fragility is all but guaranteed.

Provenance

Originally developed as a standalone flow diagram on X.
Formalized from SIA Systems in Action — When Vendorization Creates Fragility.

Notes

This flow describes vendor fragilization: a failure pattern in which reliability degrades because the party controlling maintenance and uptime does not bear the consequences of failure at the point of use.

The structure generalizes across domains including infrastructure, healthcare equipment, enterprise software, education platforms, and other vendorized systems where demand is captive and correction authority is displaced.


Capability Drift Hidden in Infrastructure

Date
December 27, 2025

Flow

Public functions outsourced →
Evaluative capacity declines →
Oversight becomes procedural →
Vendors become de facto arbiters of quality →

Incentives favor substitution and cost optimization →
Quality degrades incrementally →
Failures misattributed to “wear,” “weather,” or “bad luck” →

Shortcuts compound →
Rebuild costs rise →
System recognizes need to correct →

Pause.
Correction attempted.

Capability required for correction is no longer present →
Institutions resist rebuilding internal expertise →

System loses the ability to correct itself →
Degradation normalizes.

Compression

Systems fail quietly when they retain responsibility but lose the ability to evaluate quality.
Drift replaces collapse.

Provenance

Originally developed as a flow diagram on X.
Formalized from the essay Capability Drift in Public Infrastructure.

Notes

This flow applies across domains where expertise migrates out of the system while accountability remains nominal. Infrastructure is one visible instance of a broader structural failure pattern.


Traceability Necessary for Containment

Date
December 23, 2025

Flow

Clear chain → error nodes identified → containment
Shadow chain → error nodes hidden → system failure

Traceability = safety (in any system)

Compression

Systems fail if error nodes lose traceability.

Provenance

Originally posted on X


Brittle Power Breaks Interpretability

Date
December 18, 2025

Flow

Loss of interpretability →
Pressure replaces structure →

Pause.
Reflect.

Brittle system revealed →
Brittle power breaks interpretability first →
Reflection interrupts the plan.

Compression

When pressure replaces clarity, structure has already failed.

Provenance

Originally posted on X

Cognitive Load Test
Frame Dynamics Diagnostic


Traceability Collapses Containment

Date
December 11, 2025 and December 14, 2025

Flow

Rules → loopholes
Loopholes → workarounds
Workarounds → shadow supply chains
Shadow supply chains → lost traceability
Lost traceability → system fragility

Compression

Systems fail the moment the map disappears.

Provenance

Originally posted on X¹ and X2


When the Factories Left

Date
December 9, 2025

Flow

Factories leave →
the anchor collapses →
the vacuum demands a replacement →
systems choose what people never would →
prisons bloom where production once stood

Provenance

Originally posted on X


Related essay:
When the Factories Left


UBI Hidden in Plain Sight

Date
December 5, 2025

Prompt / Frame

Will UBI solve issues created by AI taking jobs?
(a theoretical walk)

Flow

AI takes jobs → governments give UBI checks
People stay home → get involved in politics
Time on their hands → pressure builds → demands for change
Institutions can’t tolerate that much free time → UBI gets canceled

Counter-Flow

Employment-based subsidies → make-work
Make-work → jobs
Jobs → income
Income → societal stability

Compression

UBI hidden in plain sight.
Hidden UBI Doctrine.

Provenance

Originally posted on X

Also posted later in reply to another post on X:


AI Legislation Debate

Date
November 25, 2025

Prompt / Frame

“Let’s legislate AI,” pundits say.

Flow

Legislate AI → birth new rules
Rules → demand new tech stacks
Stacks → outsourced identity checks and the like
Outsourcing → handed to “approved vendors”
Approved vendors → compound fragility at scale

Compression

We add layers to create safety —
and end up creating dependencies instead.

Provenance

Originally posted on X