The Lawful Signals of Systemic Sensitivity — What the PPI Model Is Detecting
- Don Gaconnet
- Nov 1
- 3 min read
Over the last three years, my work has centered on designing a lawful framework for measuring multi-domain behavioral stress — the Psychosocial Pressure Index (PPI).This system integrates 19 independent data streams, including civic participation, economic volatility, institutional integrity, social sentiment, resource strain, and adaptive capacity.
Each input is normalized, cross-validated, and re-weighted against historical baselines to ensure that the signal detected isn’t sentiment but lawful structural pressure — how much coherence a society retains under competing loads.
The Current Readings
Dimension | Nov 2025 Value | Threshold Interpretation |
Social Cohesion | 90.4 / 100 | Critical — coordination decay risk |
Resource Accessibility | 92.5 / 100 | Critical — material pressure high |
Institutional Resilience | 72.3 / 100 | Elevated — limited adaptive margin |
Public Trust Index | 68.1 / 100 | Declining trend |
Support Utilization Gap | 37% need vs 21% use | Under-engagement signal |
These indicators, taken alone, would be concerning. Taken together, they define a metastable state — a condition where equilibrium holds, but only just.In physical terms: super-cooled water at 32.1 °F. Still liquid, but one touch away from phase change.
Pattern Correlation and Verification
When compared against 50 years of historical multi-domain data (economic, social, and institutional), the PPI’s convergence profile correlates at r = 0.92 – 0.98 with conditions preceding systemic transitions — not in timing or cause, but in shape. That shape represents an energy distribution pattern — the lawful signature of strain in complex adaptive systems.
In Collapse Harmonics terminology, this marks the threshold between pre-saturation and near-saturation (Phases 2–3).Systemic identity remains intact, but referential coherence — the ability of subsystems to interpret one another accurately — begins to erode.
What This Is, and What It Isn’t
It is not a prediction of collapse, revolt, or crisis.It is not an emotional or political statement. It is a scientific observation: a quantifiable rise in recursive pressure across social and institutional systems.
The lawful interpretation is simple:
When coherence and pressure converge, feedback efficiency falls.
This is when miscommunication rises, institutions misread intent, and small events propagate abnormally. The PPI’s task is to quantify those conditions before they breach.
The Window for Lawful Response
Complex systems don’t respond to alarmism; they respond to accurate feedback and timely damping. Our objective is not to announce breakdown but to reintroduce signal awareness into decision layers that have become desensitized by constant noise.
The opportunity is still here: metastability means the system can re-harmonize if corrective measures — transparency, distributed adaptation, and cross-sector alignment — are engaged early.
If we can verify that this signal is lawful and reproducible, it could become an early-warning architecture for systemic resilience — a “pressure barometer” for collective coherence.
An Invitation to Collaborate
I’m opening this data and methodology for review. If you work in:
Complexity science or network analysis
Behavioral or institutional modeling
Civic or policy design for adaptive systems
Cognitive or affective forecasting
I invite you to help validate, refine, or refute the model under transparent conditions.
The PPI is not proprietary in spirit; it’s a public-interest framework designed to measure how coherence behaves under stress.
Lawful Closing
All systems tend toward equilibrium; instability is not destiny. Measurement is not alarm — it’s stewardship.
The data points to rising recursive pressure.The responsible response is open verification, lawful analysis, and coordinated stabilization.
If the model holds, it offers a new lens for prevention.If it doesn’t, it teaches us something crucial about false resonance in social data.Both outcomes strengthen science — and coherence.
Let’s test it, not fear it.
Comments