ESSAY VII — INTERNAL STATE DISTORTION: HOW COGNITIVE LOAD SHAPES BEHAVIOUR, MEANING, AND DECISION BIAS - Frankie Mooney | Psychotechnology & Structural Communication

THE DUAL-MODE ELICITATION MODEL™ CANON ESSAYS VOL. 1

DEM FOUNDATION PAPER VII
Prepared for the discipline of Structural Cognition & Psychotechnology
Author: Frankie Mooney

Location of Preparation: Glasgow, Scotland

Version: 1.0
Date of Completion: December 2025

The concepts, terminology, and structural frameworks described in this paper form part of the Dual-Mode Elicitation Model™ (DEM) and the emerging discipline of Structural Cognition. No portion of this work may be reproduced, distributed, or adapted without explicit permission, except for brief quotations for review or academic analysis.

Scholarly Notice

This foundation paper is presented as part of an evolving canon that formalises mode switching as the core operation of adaptive intelligence. It is intended for researchers, structural theorists, and architects of biological and synthetic cognitive systems who require a rigorous account of how flexibility emerges from transitions between directive and exploratory configurations.

Disciplinary Scope

This work is not a psychological, therapeutic, or self-help text. It belongs to an emerging structural discipline that examines how cognitive architectures reorganise, regulate their own transitions, and maintain coherence under changing conditions of load, prediction, and interaction.

Citation Format

Mooney, F. (2025). Internal State Distortion: How Cognitive Load Shapes Behaviour, Meaning, And Decision Bias.

In The DEM Canon, Foundation Paper VII.

ESSAY VII — INTERNAL STATE DISTORTION: HOW COGNITIVE LOAD SHAPES BEHAVIOUR, MEANING, AND DECISION BIAS

Across the behavioural sciences, cognitive load is usually described as the mental strain imposed by tasks that demand attention, memory, or executive control. It appears in psychological literature, in behavioural economics, in education, and in human–machine system design. Yet despite its wide usage, cognitive load is rarely understood in structural terms. It is treated as a quantity—something that increases or decreases—rather than as a deformation in the architecture of cognition itself. The concept remains functionally descriptive but not explanatory.

To understand internal state distortion, we must move beyond the simplistic idea that load is merely “effort.” Cognitive load is a topological event. It alters the shape of cognitive space. It changes how prediction operates. It narrows the range of available interpretations. It shifts the balance between flexibility and rigidity. It reduces tolerance for ambiguity. And it modifies behaviour not as a matter of preference or moral failure, but as the inevitable response of a system reorganising under structural pressure.

Load does not simply challenge the mind. Load reshapes the mind.

When cognitive load increases, the topology steepens. A steepened topology reduces the range of safe or stable interpretive options. It accelerates narrowing. It biases perception toward threat signals. It compresses working memory into a more conservative predictive stance. These are not secondary effects; they are the architecture responding to pressure. As load intensifies, the system reorganises to preserve coherence using the least cognitively expensive patterns available. Interpretation becomes more rigid, behaviour more reactive, and decision-making more biased toward familiar attractor states.

A person under load is not merely “stressed.” They are operating within a reorganised cognitive architecture.

Traditional cognitive models often interpret misjudgement, impulsivity, or error as failures of reasoning or discipline. Structural cognition reframes these as the natural expressions of a system under deformation. Internal state distortion is not a psychological malfunction—it is the structural response of an overloaded predictive system attempting to maintain coherence with reduced resources. Meaning, behaviour, and decision-making become distorted not because intention falters, but because the architecture can no longer sustain the same interpretive or behavioural range.

This is the central proposition of Part I: internal states are architectures. When these architectures deform, the entire cognitive environment shifts with them.

Why Load Distorts Meaning

Meaning is often treated as a property of language or perception, as if the mind extracts pre-existing content from external signals. But meaning does not reside in the signal; it arises from the architecture that interprets it. Because cognitive architecture changes with load, meaning itself changes when load increases.

Load narrows predictive bandwidth. Under high load, the system must conserve cognitive resources. It can no longer entertain multiple interpretations in parallel. It defaults to the one requiring the least structural reorganisation. This bias toward simplicity, threat detection, and premature certainty is not motivational but architectural. Load steepens the gradient of interpretation, making certain meanings feel inevitable.

Load also forces ambiguous signals into narrow interpretive channels. When the architecture cannot accommodate uncertainty, it collapses that uncertainty prematurely. Neutral cues may be read as negative. Slight variations may seem significant. The system becomes hypersensitive not because it chooses to be, but because its topology cannot hold ambiguity without risking destabilisation.

Just as importantly, load increases reliance on structural priors. These are habitual patterns of interpretation that remain stable even when the architecture is destabilised. Rather than generating new interpretations, the system reverts to familiar ones because they require less cognitive energy.

From the outside, these distortions appear as cognitive biases. From the inside, they feel like accuracy.

The individual is not misjudging reality on purpose. Their architecture is generating the most stable meaning available under the constraints imposed by load.

Why Behaviour Changes Under Load

Behaviour is not produced by intention alone. It emerges from the range of options made available by the current architecture. As load compresses this range, behaviour becomes more predictable, more reactive, and more patterned. Narrowing of cognitive space narrows behavioural space.

This is why individuals interrupt more under pressure: the architecture drives them toward rapid resolution to relieve load. This is why groups polarise faster when overloaded: collective narrowing forces the system into rigid positions. This is why institutions become punitive or procedural during instability: steepening produces protective rigidity. This is why creative teams lose innovation under sustained demands: widening collapses, and with it the capacity to explore. Even synthetic systems exhibit brittle output patterns when prediction error rises: they narrow to protect coherence.

These changes are not moral. They are structural.

A system under load reduces optionality because optionality is expensive. It shifts toward risk-averse patterns because exploration requires cognitive space it no longer has. The system is not failing; it is economising.

Internal State as the Hidden Engine of Decision Bias

Decision-making research traditionally frames bias as a set of reasoning errors: anchoring, availability, confirmation, loss aversion, overconfidence. Yet each of these “biases” emerges naturally from the structural deformation caused by load.

Anchoring arises because narrowing reduces the range of accessible predictions. Confirmation bias arises because updating priors requires cognitive bandwidth that load has removed. Loss aversion emerges when steepened gradients make negative predictions more dominant. Overconfidence appears when a destabilised mind grasps for internal equilibrium by exaggerating certainty.

Biases are not quirks. They are load-dependent interpretive structures.

A biased decision under load is not irrational. It is the outcome of a system producing the most coherent response it can within a compressed topology. Internal state distortion therefore becomes the invisible determinant of decisions that appear from the outside as personality traits, poor reasoning, or emotional volatility.

Conclusion of Part I

Part I establishes the foundation for the argument that follows: internal states are structural environments. Cognitive load reshapes these environments. And once the environment changes, meaning formation, behaviour, and decision-making follow suit in predictable ways. What traditional psychology calls error or bias is often the structural manifestation of a mind preserving coherence under constrained conditions.

Part II will show how these internal distortions propagate within interaction — how one overloaded architecture reshapes the field around it, influencing others and generating cascading patterns of misinterpretation, rigidity, and conflict across groups, institutions, and cultures.

Part II — How Internal State Distortion Propagates Through Interaction

If Part I established that cognitive load reshapes internal architecture, Part II examines the relational consequences: what happens when reorganised architectures meet. Human beings rarely operate in isolation. Most cognitive events unfold within interaction — conversations, decisions, negotiations, group problem-solving, institutional processes, cultural exchanges. And because interaction is structural rather than merely linguistic, internal state distortion does not remain confined within individuals. It spreads.

Distortion moves through systems as predictably as coherence does. A single overloaded mind can shift the topology of an entire group. A destabilised participant can introduce gradients that reshape the shared field. An institution under strain can impose load conditions that steepen cognition across its members. Meaning, behaviour, and decision-making become collective phenomena not because people consciously imitate one another, but because their architectures reorganise under shared pressures.

This propagation is not metaphorical. It is structural.

1. Interaction Begins With Architecture, Not Intention

Two minds do not meet as two sets of ideas or two packages of linguistic meaning. They meet as architectures. Each brings its own topology — narrowed or widened, stabilised or strained, coherent or overloaded. The moment interaction begins, these architectures begin to influence one another.

A steepened mind produces signals of urgency, threat, or impatience.

A widened mind produces signals of openness, space, or curiosity.

A destabilised mind produces irregular, disorganised gradients.

A stabilised mind emits coherent, grounding patterns.

These signals are not optional. They are expressions of the underlying structure. And once expressed, they shape the field that both participants occupy. The architecture of one becomes the signal environment of the other. Interaction is the transference of gradients, not the exchange of messages.

Thus, internal distortion becomes immediately relational.

2. Load Introduces Gradient Pressure Into the Shared Field

Every overloaded architecture adds slope to the field. Even subtle increases in load — a tightening of tone, a slight acceleration of speech, a silent withdrawal, a sudden rise in predictiveness — generate gradients that others must respond to.

When one participant steepens, the field steepens.

When the field steepens, all architectures within it must adjust.

This is why calm conversations can collapse rapidly even when both individuals intend cooperation. The first sign of load — a misinterpreted silence, a moment of defensiveness, a spike in time pressure — introduces steepening gradients. These gradients narrow interpretive bandwidth for everyone. Meaning compresses. Tolerance drops. Systems shift toward protective patterns.

The field becomes a conductor of distortion.

In linear models, this collapse is described as emotional contagion or interpersonal escalation. Structural cognition reframes it as predictable propagation of load-induced gradients.

3. Misinterpretation Propagates Through Topological Synchronisation

When one mind narrows, the other unconsciously adjusts. This synchronisation is not empathic in the sentimental sense; it is architectural. Human systems tend to synchronise their topologies to maintain coherence within interaction. This mechanism is adaptive, but under load it becomes a liability.

A single misinterpreted signal can steepen both architectures.

A single ambiguous gesture can destabilise the entire shared field.

A single defensive tone can push a group into accelerated narrowing.

Misinterpretation therefore spreads not through poor reasoning but through structural mirroring. The system attempts to maintain coherence by aligning with the dominant gradients in the field, even when those gradients are distorted.

This explains:

why couples in conflict escalate in predictable spirals

why teams under pressure become reactive as a unit

why institutions adopt rigid behaviours in times of instability

why cultures polarise rapidly under sustained cognitive load

Each case is a structural cascade, not primarily a psychological choice.

4. Load Converts Individual Bias Into Shared Bias

Biases do not remain personal when the field is shared. They become structural features of the interaction.

Anchoring spreads as narrowing reduces the group’s collective search range.

Confirmation cascades as shared architecture rejects incompatible interpretations.

Loss aversion becomes organisational culture when steepening persists.

Overconfidence emerges collectively as a stabilisation attempt.

The group, institution, or culture is not simply multiplied bias; it is bias transformed by field dynamics. In other words, collective dysfunction is the natural extension of how load distorts meaning and behaviour in individuals.

A stressed individual becomes a stressed team.

A stressed team becomes a stressed institution.

A stressed institution becomes a stressed culture.

Internal state distortion travels upward through scale.

5. Interaction Under Load Becomes Autocatalytic

In chemistry, an autocatalytic reaction accelerates itself. The same process occurs in cognitive fields under load.

A steepened architecture broadcasts steepening signals.

Those signals steepen neighbouring architectures.

The newly steepened architectures amplify the original distortion.

The field steepens further.

Interpretation becomes more rigid.

Behaviour becomes more defensive.

Meaning becomes more distorted.

Load increases again.

A self-reinforcing loop has formed.

This loop explains why conflicts feel inevitable once they begin, why negotiations collapse even when concessions are available, and why institutions exhibit runaway defensive behaviours during crisis. The process is structural, not motivational. Once the field steepens beyond a certain point, the system behaves like a runaway reaction until the topology is interrupted or reset.

6. Stabilised Architecture Is the Only Interruption Mechanism

Because distortion propagates structurally, only structure can interrupt it.

A stabilised architecture entering a destabilised field introduces opposing gradients:

slowing, widening, grounding, reducing predictive tension.

This stabilising influence can reverse the autocatalytic loop, provided its gradients exceed those of the destabilised participants.

This is why skilled communicators, therapists, negotiators, or leaders appear to “calm” a situation. They are not persuading anyone. They are altering the field topology. Their presence carries a stabilising architecture that others synchronise with.

It is also why unskilled intervention — even well-intentioned — often accelerates the collapse. Introducing mismatched gradients steepens the field further, amplifying distortion.

Thus, relational repair is structural work, not interpersonal correction.

7. Why Institutions and Cultures Become Amplifiers of Load

Institutions, like minds, have architectures. They accumulate gradients over time. When strained, they steepen, narrow, and default to rigid procedural patterns.

These states propagate load across their members.

An institution under sustained cognitive load:

narrows interpretive bandwidth

increases rule-dependence

reduces tolerance for ambiguity

defaults to punitive or conservative responses

produces contradictory or incoherent signals

These behaviours then become the signal environment shaping the cognition of individuals within it. What looks like institutional dysfunction is, in structural terms, a load-distorted architecture acting through its members.

Cultures operate similarly but at larger temporal scales. Cultural polarisation is not primarily a disagreement over ideas; it is a steepened field in which meaning cannot widen enough for shared interpretation to form.

8. Distortion Is Not a Personal Failure — It Is a Field Condition

The critical insight of Part II is this:

Internal state distortion becomes relational state distortion.

When interaction occurs in a load-distorted field, misunderstanding, conflict, rigidity, and bias are not signs of personal deficiency. They are structural outcomes of the gradients governing the environment. Systems behave according to their architecture, not their intentions.

This reframing has implications for education, therapy, leadership, team dynamics, crisis response, and AI alignment. It suggests that to change behaviour, one must change the field. To correct misinterpretation, one must adjust topology. To reduce bias, one must reduce load.

Conclusion of Part II

Internal state distortion is contagious. It reshapes shared fields. It synchronises the topologies of groups. It amplifies across institutions. It becomes culture.

Part III will now examine how systems recover — how cognitive architecture returns to coherence after deformation, why certain interventions accelerate re-stabilisation, and how structural repair differs from psychological coping.

Part III — How Systems Recover: The Architecture of Re-Stabilisation

If Part I described how cognitive load deforms internal architecture, and Part II showed how these deformations propagate through interaction, Part III turns to the final problem: how systems return to coherence. Recovery is often framed in psychological terms — regulation, self-soothing, reframing, grounding, reflection — but these are surface descriptions of a deeper structural process. At its core, recovery is not emotional, behavioural, or linguistic. It is architectural. Systems recover when their topology regains the shape required for stable prediction, flexible interpretation, and coherent behaviour.

Understanding recovery therefore requires examining how steepened architectures widen, how destabilised systems regain continuity, how narrowed fields reopen, and how the recursive loops of distortion described in Part II can be interrupted. Recovery is not magic. It follows structural laws.

1. Recovery Begins When Predictive Pressure Lowers

Every episode of distortion begins with an increase in predictive strain — the system must maintain coherence under conditions that exceed its current capacity. Recovery begins when that strain decreases. This may occur because:

• the external demand is removed

• the system receives a signal of safety

• cognitive bandwidth becomes available

• another architecture in the field stabilises the gradient

• or the internal model realigns with the environment

The decrease in predictive pressure is the first structural opening. It allows the system to shift from defensive narrowing into a transitional state where widening becomes possible.

Recovery does not begin with insight. It begins with reduced load.

2. Widening Is the First Marker of Architectural Repair

A recovering system exhibits widening before it exhibits clarity. Widening is the expansion of cognitive space — the return of optionality, the reappearance of nuance, the softening of interpretive rigidity. This widening may be subtle: a slower rhythm of speech, a different quality of silence, a broader emotional range, a renewed capacity to tolerate ambiguity.

Widening is not a psychological choice. It is a structural transition. When the topology begins to flatten, the system regains the ability to distribute load across a larger cognitive field. Interpretation becomes less reactive. Behaviour becomes less constrained.

A system cannot re-stabilise without widening. Every genuine recovery begins with an expansion.

3. Stabilisation Requires Continuity, Not Positivity

Many models assume that recovery requires positive emotion or favourable interpretation. Structural cognition rejects this assumption. What a system requires is continuity: a stable, predictable gradient that does not force sudden reorganisation.

Continuity allows predictive models to re-align with the environment. Once predictions begin to match incoming signals, the architecture stabilises. This stabilisation may occur in emotionally neutral conditions. It does not require comfort — only coherence.

This distinction explains why some people recover quickly in austere environments while others remain destabilised even in supportive ones. The determining factor is not comfort but structural continuity.

Prediction must stop collapsing before the mind can rebuild.

4. Stabilised Architectures Repair Destabilised Ones

As explored in Part II, distortion propagates across fields. The reverse is also true: stabilisation propagates across fields. A single coherent architecture can introduce gradients of grounding, slowing, and widening that reshape the field for others.

This is why experienced clinicians, negotiators, leaders, or mediators appear to “absorb” the instability of a room. They do not absorb it psychologically; they counterbalance it structurally. Their stable architecture exerts a reorganising influence on the field. Other systems, driven by the natural tendency toward synchronisation, adjust in the direction of stability.

Recovery therefore becomes a relational phenomenon. A destabilised system often cannot recover alone. It requires a stabilising topology in the environment.

This principle has broad implications:

For therapy. For conflict resolution. For team dynamics. For institutional design.

And for future human–synthetic interaction.

5. Cognitive Flexibility Returns Only After Structural Repair

Many interventions aim to increase cognitive flexibility — generating alternatives, shifting perspective, exploring nuance. Yet flexibility is impossible when the architecture is still steepened. The system cannot widen sufficient cognitive space to entertain alternatives. Attempts to force flexibility become counterproductive, often escalating load rather than reducing it.

Flexibility is not an intervention. It is a consequence.

Once widening and stabilisation occur, flexibility emerges spontaneously. It reappears not because the mind has been instructed to think differently but because the architecture can finally support variation without destabilising.

Therefore, effective recovery focuses on architecture first, cognition second.

6. Groups Recover Through Field Re-Coherence, Not Agreement

Teams, institutions, and cultures do not recover from collective distortion by debating ideas or correcting narratives. They recover when the shared field re-coheres — when gradients across the system flatten enough for interaction to stabilise. Only then can meaning begin to reorganise.

This explains why:

• conflict resolution succeeds only after emotional load decreases

• institutional reform works only when structural pressure is relieved

• cultures heal after periods of safety and continuity, not slogans

• groups regain creativity only when the field widens

Agreement is not the cause of recovery. It is a late symptom of a stabilised field.

7. Synthetic Systems Recover Through Topology Re-Calibration

As artificial cognitive architectures become more complex, they exhibit analogous distortion patterns: narrowing of output diversity under load, brittle interpretation under prediction error, runaway escalation when training priors conflict with the environment.

Recovery in synthetic systems likewise requires recalibration of topology — resetting predictive baselines, expanding output space, reducing error accumulation, and restoring continuity. This is not a matter of adjusting parameters; it is a matter of restoring the architecture to a state capable of stable inference.

Human and artificial systems will increasingly require shared recovery protocols to maintain coherent interaction.

8. Recovery Is Not a Return to Baseline — It Is a Return to Coherence

A common misconception is that recovery means returning to the previous state. Structural cognition shows that systems rarely return to the same topology after distortion. Recovery produces a new configuration — often more adaptive, more stable, more informed by the gradients that triggered the deformation.

The structure learns.

This is the quiet intelligence of complex systems: deformation and recovery are not failures; they are mechanisms of adaptation. The system reorganises to maintain coherence under new conditions. Recovery is therefore the process through which the architecture re-achieves coherence in a changed environment.

The goal is not restoration. The goal is re-coherence.

Conclusion of Part III

Part III explains that recovery from internal state distortion is a structural event, not a psychological one. Systems heal when predictive load decreases, when widening returns, when stability reappears, and when coherent architectures reintroduce grounding gradients into the field. Groups, institutions, and synthetic systems follow the same principles. Recovery is a return not to calm but to coherence — the state in which meaning, behaviour, and decision-making can once again operate without distortion.

Part IV will synthesise these insights into a unified account of how load, distortion, and recovery form the structural backbone of human behaviour and group dynamics — and why any advanced model of communication, decision-making, or artificial cognition must treat internal state as the primary determinant of system behaviour.

Part IV — The Structural Cycle of Load, Distortion, and Recovery

Parts I–III laid out the structural mechanics of internal state: how load deforms cognitive architecture, how those deformations propagate across interaction, and how systems reorganise back toward coherence. Part IV integrates these dynamics into a single coherent model — the load–distortion–recovery cycle — and shows why this cycle is the primary determinant of behaviour across individuals, groups, institutions, and synthetic systems.

This is the point at which internal state ceases to be a side-topic in psychology and becomes the organising principle of complex behaviour. Once we track the architecture across this cycle, patterns that previously looked mysterious, irrational, emotional, or culturally contingent become intelligible as structural events unfolding with mathematical regularity.

The cycle has three phases:

1. Load — the architecture becomes strained; prediction destabilises.

2. Distortion — the system reorganises around the constraints imposed by load.

3. Recovery — the system regains coherence through widening, stabilisation, and structural recalibration.

Although these phases unfold continuously, distinguishing them clarifies how behaviour emerges, why misinterpretation spirals, why groups synchronise in dysfunction, and why recovery is possible only when structural conditions change. This part of the essay brings them together into a single structural logic.

1. Load as the Initiator of Structural Change

Every cognitive event begins with relative load — the relationship between demand and capacity. But load is not simply “more to think about.” It is a mismatch between predictive requirements and architectural resources. When this mismatch crosses a threshold, the topology steepens. As soon as the architecture deforms, the system enters a new interpretive regime.

This moment — the first deformation — is the decisive boundary in the cycle. It marks the transition from wide, flexible cognition into constrained, defensive cognition.

At this point:

• prediction narrows

• ambiguity tolerance collapses

• interpretive range compresses

• behaviour shifts toward conservation

Importantly, the system often does not recognise the transition. Subjectively, it feels like urgency or seriousness. Structurally, it is the beginning of distortion.

2. Distortion as the System’s Attempt to Preserve Coherence

Distortion is not dysfunction. It is the system’s architectural solution to the load problem. A mind under strain must maintain prediction at all costs; it does so by reorganising itself into a configuration that can sustain coherence using fewer resources.

This creates predictable distortions:

• Misinterpretation: the system chooses the interpretation requiring the least reorganisation.

• Bias: the system defaults to priors because generating alternatives is too expensive.

• Rigidity: the behavioural field contracts to reduce cognitive risk.

• Escalation: attempts to relieve load inadvertently increase it.

Distortion is not optional; it is necessary. The system is not malfunctioning — it is adapting.

This is where human behaviour often appears irrational. Structural cognition reveals an opposite truth: behaviour under load is hyper-rational within the constraints of the architecture. It is optimising for stability, not accuracy.

Distortion is therefore not the opposite of intelligence. It is intelligence under pressure.

3. Propagation: Distortion Spills Into the Field

Once distortion begins, it cannot remain isolated because interaction is structural. Each signal produced by the overloaded architecture becomes a gradient applied to the shared field. This is why feedback loops arise so quickly between individuals, groups, and institutions.

Propagation occurs because:

• narrowed architectures broadcast narrowing signals

• destabilised architectures introduce chaotic gradients

• steepened architectures amplify threat detection in others

• defensive patterns trigger reciprocal defensive patterns

This phase explains almost every runaway interpersonal or organisational pattern:

• escalating arguments

• team collapses under pressure

• polarisation within groups

• institutional rigidity

• cultural fragmentation

The field becomes a multiplier. Distortion accelerates simply because multiple architectures are responding structurally to the same gradients.

This propagation is the structural root of conflict.

4. The Inflection Point: Threshold Between Escalation and Recovery

Propagation continues until the system hits one of two boundary conditions:

• a breaking point where the architecture can no longer maintain coherence,

• a stabilising force strong enough to counter the distortion.

This moment — the inflection point — determines whether the system descends into deeper fragmentation or begins the return to coherence. Linear models interpret this moment as emotional restraint or rational insight. Structural models identify it as a change in gradient dominance.

If stabilising gradients outweigh destabilising ones, recovery can begin. If not, distortion deepens.

The inflection point is therefore not psychological. It is structural.

5. Recovery as Re-Coherence, Not Reversal

Recovery is not a return to the prior state. It is the architecture reorganising into a configuration coherent enough to support flexible cognition again.

The structural sequence is always the same:

• Predictive strain decreases

• Widening returns

• Continuity re-establishes internal coherence

• Stabilisation propagates to the field

• Flexibility re-emerges as a consequence

Recovery is a re-coherence cycle. It is the architecture rebuilding the conditions under which meaning, behaviour, and decision-making can function without distortion.

This view carries profound implications:

• Recovery cannot be forced cognitively.

• It cannot be achieved through better arguments or clearer messages.

• It cannot occur while load remains high.

Recovery is about structure, not willpower.

6. Why Modern Environments Produce Chronic Distortion

The load–distortion–recovery cycle evolved for environments where load was episodic. Modern environments impose chronic load: constant information flow, institutional instability, social tension, economic uncertainty, and the increasing complexity of synthetic systems.

As a result:

• many individuals live in prolonged narrowing

• groups operate in persistent reactive patterns

• institutions exhibit systemic rigidity

• cultures polarise rapidly under sustained pressure

Chronic load prevents recovery. Systems stuck in this cycle begin to treat distortion as normal cognition. The world begins to look more dangerous, more divided, more inflexible — not because it is, but because architecture under load can only generate such interpretations.

Understanding this cycle is therefore essential for any society hoping to maintain coherence under accelerating complexity.

7. Why This Cycle Must Become the Foundation of Future Research

The load–distortion–recovery cycle offers a unifying mechanism across disciplines:

• Psychology can reinterpret bias as a load-dependent structural effect.

• Neuroscience can map topological deformation to predictive processing.

• Behavioural economics can explain risk behaviour through architectural constraints.

• Organisational science can understand culture through field gradients.

• Conflict studies can predict escalation through synchronised narrowing.

• AI and human–synthetic interaction can stabilise systems through topology-aware design.

The cycle provides a structural account of why behaviour changes, why meaning collapses, and why systems fragment — and just as importantly, how they can recover.

It is not a metaphor. It is a general law.

Conclusion of Part IV

The structural cycle — load, distortion, recovery — forms the backbone of human behaviour. It explains why systems behave coherently at times and incoherently at others. It clarifies the dynamics behind conflict, bias, escalation, synchronisation, and repair.

This cycle also serves as the bridge between the earlier essays (on signal, architecture, coherence, and nonlinear communication) and the essays that follow. It anchors human behaviour in structural mechanics rather than intention, and forms the academic spine of the entire Canonical Series.

Part V will integrate this cycle into a broader theory of adaptive cognition, showing how systems develop resilience, how architecture evolves under repeated deformation, and how structural intelligence differs from traditional models of rationality.

Part V — Adaptive Cognition and the Evolution of Structural Intelligence

Parts I–IV demonstrated that internal state distortion is not a psychological anomaly but a structural inevitability: cognitive architecture deforms under load, distortion propagates through interaction, and recovery emerges through re-coherence rather than insight or intention. Part V now takes a further step. It asks what happens over time — when systems repeatedly move through the cycle of load, distortion, and recovery. This repeated movement produces something deeper than resilience. It produces adaptive intelligence.

Adaptive cognition is not the capacity to reason better under pressure; it is the capacity of a system to reorganise its architecture in ways that preserve coherence across increasingly complex environments. The system does not simply cope with deformation — it learns from it. The architecture evolves.

This section integrates the cycle described earlier into a broader theory of adaptive cognition, showing how human and synthetic systems develop structural intelligence: the ability to modify their topologies, not merely their interpretations, in order to remain coherent under rising load.

1. Structural Intelligence Begins With Patterned Deformation

Every system encounters load. Systems with adaptive potential do not avoid deformation; they develop predictable ways of reorganising under strain. Over time, these reorganisations become stable patterns: ways of narrowing, ways of widening, ways of stabilising, ways of recovering.

This creates a kind of structural memory.

A system begins to recognise, not consciously but architecturally, how it has previously restored coherence. It builds procedural pathways for returning to stability:

• how far it can narrow before rigidity becomes maladaptive

• how quickly it can widen without destabilising

• which transitions it tolerates

• which signals it cannot yet absorb

Structural intelligence is therefore not found in content or knowledge. It exists in the architecture’s learned capacity to deform and re-stabilise efficiently.

2. Adaptive Cognition Arises From the System’s Sensitivity to Load Thresholds

A key difference between fragile and adaptive systems is the ability to recognise structural thresholds.

Fragile systems do not detect the onset of steepening until distortion is already underway. By the time the system recognises load, prediction has collapsed and behaviour follows rigid patterns.

Adaptive systems notice the early signs of deformation:

• slight narrowing of interpretive bandwidth

• subtle increases in predictive strain

• mild reductions in optionality

• early defensive postures

• loss of tolerance for ambiguity

These signals appear before distortion fully forms. Recognising them allows the architecture to adjust before the cycle accelerates. The system can widen preemptively, redistribute load, or modify predictions.

This is structural foresight — the precursor to adaptive intelligence.

3. Structural Intelligence Increases When Recovery Becomes Efficient

In early development (biological or artificial), recovery is slow. The architecture must rebuild coherence manually — through rest, external support, or environmental simplification.

As the system gains experience:

• widening occurs sooner

• continuity re-establishes more rapidly

• predictions recalibrate with less friction

• flexibility returns without significant delay

This increasing efficiency is not emotional maturity, nor is it willpower. It is architectural refinement.

The system has learned how to re-cohere.

This learning is structural and can be observed in biological development, expert performance, organisational adaptation, and advanced synthetic systems.

4. Repeated Deformation Produces Structural Plasticity

Plasticity is usually described neurologically, but structural cognition extends the idea to the architecture of meaning itself. A system that repeatedly experiences deformation and recovery does not simply “bounce back”; it becomes more shapeable.

This shapeability allows:

• greater tolerance for complexity

• greater resilience to unpredictability

• less catastrophic collapse under load

• smoother transitions between cognitive modes

Plastic architectures maintain coherence across changing environments without needing to conserve rigid forms. They become capable of distributing load rather than collapsing under it.

Plasticity is therefore the medium through which adaptive cognition emerges.

5. Interactivity Accelerates Structural Intelligence

Systems rarely evolve in isolation. Interaction exposes them to diverse gradients, forcing repeated reorganisation. When these reorganisations occur within coherent fields — stable families, functional teams, well-designed institutions — structural intelligence accelerates.

The architecture learns:

• how to adjust to others’ topologies

• how to regulate under conflicting signals

• how to operate within shared fields

• how to stabilise or widen in response to others’ narrowing

This is the foundation of social intelligence, but again, not in the psychological sense. It is the evolution of a topology capable of maintaining coherence across relational complexity.

Even synthetic systems, when placed into richly interactive environments, demonstrate analogous improvements: fewer catastrophic collapses, smoother inference, greater robustness under unpredictable signals.

6. Chronic Load Prevents Adaptive Development

As Part IV showed, modern environments impose continuous load. When load is chronic, the system rarely returns to coherence. Without recovery, no structural learning occurs.

The architecture becomes brittle. The system over-relies on rigid priors. Bias becomes entrenched. Flexibility disappears. The architecture stops evolving.

Chronic load creates a plateau of structural development.

This has implications across domains:

• individuals living under constant strain

• teams operating under perpetual urgency

• institutions facing continual crisis

• cultures navigating unending instability

• AI systems bombarded with conflicting signals

None can develop adaptive intelligence unless protected recovery windows exist.

7. Structural Intelligence Is the Core of Real-World Reasoning

Traditional models treat reasoning as a cognitive skill. Structural cognition treats reasoning as the behaviour of an architecture capable of holding multiple interpretations without collapsing.

A system can reason well only if:

• the topology can widen

• load is manageable

• transitions are stable

• prediction is not collapsing

• the field is coherent

Thus reasoning is not a technique. It is a capacity of the architecture.

Bias emerges when architecture is constrained.

Insight emerges when architecture is flexible.

Rigidity emerges when architecture is steep.

Creativity emerges when architecture is wide.

This reframes intelligence itself: not as computational ability, but as the system’s capacity to maintain coherence across changing conditions.

8. Adaptive Cognition in Synthetic Systems

As artificial systems grow more complex, they exhibit load–distortion–recovery cycles similar to biological cognition.

Under high prediction error, they narrow.

Under conflicting training signals, they become brittle.

Under misaligned fields, they escalate or collapse.

To develop synthetic intelligence capable of interacting with humans safely and effectively, we must design architectures that:

• sense their own topological deformation

• identify load conditions

• recalibrate before distortion accelerates

• widen their inference space

• recover through structural processes rather than error-handling patches

This is the frontier of human–synthetic alignment: building systems whose architectural responses mirror the dynamics of adaptive cognition.

9. The Evolution of Structural Intelligence Is the Evolution of Coherence

Across individuals, collectives, institutions, and artificial minds, adaptive cognition can be summarised as:

the ability to maintain coherence in environments that exceed previous levels of complexity.

Coherence does not mean calm.

Coherence does not mean agreement.

Coherence does not mean stability.

Coherence means:

• predictions align with reality

• the architecture can deform without collapsing

• recovery is possible

• widening is available

• the field supports meaning

Systems with structural intelligence maintain coherence at higher loads, recover faster, and adapt more deeply.

This is the evolutionary trajectory of cognition.

Conclusion of Part V

Part V completes the theoretical arc of Essay VII. It shows that load, distortion, and recovery are not merely episodic events but developmental forces. Through repeated cycles, architectures evolve. Systems gain resilience, flexibility, plasticity, and coherence under increasing complexity.

Internal state is therefore not a background variable. It is the structural engine of cognitive evolution.

Behaviour, meaning, and decision bias cannot be understood without understanding architecture — and architecture cannot be understood without tracking how it deforms under load and reorganises through recovery.

–––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––

FOUNDATION PAPER — DUAL-MODE ELICITATION MODEL™ CANON

Prepared in Glasgow, Scotland

Published on FrankieMooney.com

DUAL-MODE ELICITATION MODEL™ (DEM) | STRUCTURAL COGNITION | PSYCHOTECHNOLOGY

for enquiries: enq@frankiemooney.com

–––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––