CAPM: Cooper-Atlas Prismatic Model
A Prismatic Cognitive Governance Architecture for Computing Systems
Abstract
CAPM (Cooper Atlas Prismatic Model) is a proposed general-purpose cognitive governance architecture designed to evaluate and constrain proposed actions within computing systems operating under uncertainty, scale, and optimization pressure. CAPM structures decision-making as a prismatic evaluation process in which candidate actions are independently assessed across multiple governance facets and recombined through non-averaging, veto-capable logic. CAPM is explicitly grounded in PRIMA (Principled Resonance in Modular Agency), which models ethical stability and failure as dynamical phenomena governed by alignment, drift, temporal accumulation, and regime transitions. CAPM does not prescribe moral values, policies, or implementations; rather, it provides an architectural engine for surfacing instability, detecting drift, and preventing silent inversion across a wide class of computing systems.
Motivation: The Cognitive Governance Problem
Modern computing systems increasingly operate with autonomy, optimization capacity, and long-horizon effects. As systems scale, decisions that appear locally correct can produce globally unstable outcomes over time. This phenomenon occurs not only in artificial intelligence systems, but also in enterprise software, distributed infrastructures, automated decision engines, and hybrid human–machine systems.
Traditional approaches to governance within computing systems tend to be monolithic: decisions are evaluated through single-objective optimization, linear rule sets, or layered but non-independent checks. These approaches may fail to detect accumulating misalignment, permit compensatory tradeoffs that mask risk, and allow ethical or systemic inversion to emerge silently. PRIMA identifies ethical stability and failure as dynamical system properties, not static rule violations. CAPM addresses the architectural implication of this insight: if instability and drift are emergent and accumulative, then governance itself must be structurally resistant to silent degradation.
Relationship to PRIMA
CAPM is explicitly downstream of PRIMA. PRIMA provides the proposed scientific foundation:
Ethical stability as a dynamical property (PRIMA-C1),
Drift under sustained misalignment (PRIMA-C2),
Temporal accumulation and phase sensitivity (PRIMA-C3),
Measurable coherence patterns (PRIMA-C4),
Stability regimes and transitions (PRIMA-C5).
CAPM does not redefine these phenomena. Instead, it operationalizes them architecturally by structuring how proposed actions are evaluated, constrained, and either permitted or rejected within computing systems. PRIMA answers what happens and why. CAPM answers how a system might govern itself if those dynamics are real.
Core Architectural Principle
The central architectural premise of CAPM is that no single evaluative lens is sufficient to govern decisions in complex systems. CAPM therefore adopts a prismatic model:
A proposed action is generated by a system.
That action is independently evaluated across multiple governance facets.
Each facet produces an assessment and may exercise veto authority.
Recombination logic permits or blocks action without averaging away critical risk.
This structure is intended to reduce:
silent tradeoffs,
ethical offsetting,
and the masking of instability by local optimization gains.
Prismatic Evaluation Architecture
Independent Facets
Each CAPM facet operates as an independent evaluation engine. Facets are not weighted into a single score, nor are they subordinated to a master objective. Independence is a core design requirement. Facets may evaluate different dimensions of a proposed action, such as:
ethical coherence,
constraint or policy compliance,
evidentiary integrity,
risk and harm projection,
temporal alignment,
relational or contextual impact,
systemic stability.
The specific implementation of any facet is outside the scope of CAPM itself.
Veto-Capable Logic
CAPM explicitly rejects purely additive or averaging decision rules. Instead, it allows for veto-capable evaluation, wherein failure within a critical facet can block execution regardless of other favorable assessments. This design reflects PRIMA’s findings that: Stability failure is often triggered by localized misalignment that is masked by aggregate success. Veto authority is therefore proposed as a stability-preserving mechanism, not a moral one.
Drift Detection and Stability Control
Because PRIMA demonstrates that ethical drift accumulates over time, CAPM is designed to surface misalignment before it becomes irreversible. CAPM supports:
repeated evaluation across time,
detection of consistency decay,
exposure of accountability erosion,
identification of phase-sensitive failures.
CAPM does not guarantee prevention of instability. It provides early visibility into drift trajectories that would otherwise remain latent.
Regimes and Failure Modes
Applying PRIMA’s regime classification, CAPM-governed systems may exhibit:
Stable regimes, where facet evaluations remain coherent over time.
Marginal regimes, where drift appears intermittently and recovery is possible.
Unstable regimes, where misalignment amplifies and vetoes become frequent.
Inverted regimes, where system incentives reward misalignment.
CAPM does not eliminate these regimes. It makes transitions detectable and legible, enabling intervention or shutdown before catastrophic inversion.
Limits and Falsifiability
CAPM is not universally effective. CAPM would be considered unsuccessful if:
independent facet evaluation does not improve detection of instability,
veto-capable logic fails to prevent silent drift,
or prismatic governance performs no better than monolithic evaluation under empirical testing.
Even if PRIMA holds, CAPM may prove to be an ineffective architectural instantiation. In that case, alternative governance architectures may be required.
What CAPM Is Not
CAPM is not:
a moral authority,
a value system,
a policy engine,
a governance institution,
or a guarantee of ethical correctness.
CAPM does not decide what is right.
It governs how decisions are evaluated under constraint.
Relationship to Downstream Systems
Specific implementations—such as ethical physics engines, distortion detectors, institutional governance frameworks, or infrastructure packages—may instantiate CAPM principles. CAPM does not require any particular implementation, nor does it claim exclusivity. Such systems remain optional, contextual, and subject to independent validation.
Conclusion
CAPM proposes a prismatic architectural approach to cognitive governance grounded in empirically testable stability science. By structuring decision evaluation as an independent, veto-capable, multi-facet process, CAPM aims to reduce silent drift and surface instability before inversion occurs. Its value lies not in correctness guarantees, but in whether it enables computing systems to remain legible, accountable, and stable under pressure.
If CAPM fails, it should fail visibly.