Interventionists’ Journal for 2003 CE

In client work you should be acting under the command of civil law or natural law then under client orders. Tell them as you go, so they know when you have hit a constraint. You will competently do the assignment as long as it does not include violating the conditions of your license or attempting to defy natural law. If they grant you your loyalty squeeze and relationship to natural law, the rest is on auto.  They either will willfully reject the truth and get on the guilt train express or get trapped in the 1/540 logic. When they reject you everyone will know they are breaking the law and proving everything you already told them. You then have a documented “willful” chip to play later on.

The spotlight for the amicus is that we know, via natural law, about the limits to supervisory power. When there is activity pressure to increase the intensity, you know it’s on diminishing returns. We engineers are expected to know and inform the court. Once informed, if the court acts in a manner to support the regulatory side when it’s over diminishing returns inflection, the court is exposed to dereliction of duty to the public interest. He is willfully participating in a process that is harming the public.

If the regulatory process is beneficial and cost effective, there is no pressure for change (control loop). The existence of pressure to increase regulation intensity (laws, codes, enforcement) is clear evidence that the regulatory process now in effect is off-zone. If the first layer didn’t do the job, more will be worse. If the regulation is in the loyalty silo, very little will suffice. You don’t need cops out in the super boonies because the culture regulates itself.  If the regulation needs to derive a loyalty switch in order to attain the stated goal, more is worse. You can implant, conversion is impossible and to attempt to do it by incentives is dereliction of duty – malpractice. The regulator should be the first to know when conditions have changed so much that goal attainment requires a loyalty silo switch. His duty is to go up his ladder. All can be validated by independent tests and examples – they will never do an implant which proves the case right there. That is we can make the case and show how it can be independently validated. The refusal to validate, proves the case. You have informed, they have deliberately chosen to ignore it and thus complicit in the problem against the public interest.

You make the case for loyalty toxicity with it being affirmed by the choices the players make. Refusal to act proves that they are loyal to the toxic system – which was the point in the first place. PL food. The legal system contains both method systems.  The record is there. None will look. Those in the loyalty silo cannot change the scene from within and thereby are not asked to try. This is why we don’t interact with them. The pitch goes to the regulators of the regulators – the independent stakeholder groups. Those with responsibility to act objectively.

I must tie the regulator slam to control theory. The limits being set by natural law – with parallel examples. We engineers are the appointed custodians of material natural law and have the duty to warn because we, by definition, are the first sentinels in the chain to detect a collision harmful to society.

What you do after they fill your notebooks with in-silo problems and solutions is to tell them that the whole thing is a mismatch. They will be expecting you to tinker with the system as they do. Instead, you refer to your duty to warn that the system itself is toxic. Demo by removing layers altogether and by implant. Implants can use the same people now in the silo. The only thing you are changing is the system of task selection to be loyal to. This shows it is loyalty and not the individuals. It also shows that personal character and ethics has nothing to do with it.  Demo is quick and easy. Once again, when they freeze up – it proves the thesis.

Damage response side of risk management is within the rules-based loyalty silo. The damage defines the focus goal in place of management and nothing much to do after damage but restore tranquil production. Faster is better. Preemption is far outside the loyalty silo. The effort to preempt requires tasks and intelligence that are automatically persecuted as alien in silo. Whistleblower book: “The goal of any organization is to eliminate the disruptive effect of the ethical individual. Organizations are basically amoral.” What I say now is that morality is attached after the fact to whatever you get from loyalty to corporate norms.. Morality is never an input. Ethics follows activity and activity is selected by a value system. Task selection is either by rules or by the engineering design process. Either can be ethical. It is situation and application dependent.

The order of battle now is infallible. You can say “It’s OK” at any time in any step with zero pressure and zero angst. It starts with establishing your loyalty benchmark as the PE SoCaD as set by law. (you cannot do otherwise) You do nothing but praise people’s loyalty to the system they have. They will puke their brains out about every problem and every solution. You evaluate the scene to the $1 regulatory benchmark which is damage response.  You never get to the point of criticizing the regulatory compliance system they have. You never suggest more supervision, only less. All levels are to be commended for their loyalty to the $1 damage-response system.  Then, and only then, do you comment on their standing relative to the $540 preemption system. Give the list of missing and woefully underfunded activities and artifacts. Simulated deposition workshop demo. They get A+ for the $1 risk compliance and F for the $540 compliance.

 

Martha Stewart, to settle her insider trading matter, would have lost about $150K in give-back and $100K in fines and legal costs. Not content with the $1 regulatory benchmark, she went for the $540 standard. So far, Martha has lost $650M and the legal action is just in the early stages. The class of Enron is also escalating the ratio of benchmark costs above the former 540/1  rule of thumb.

 

The conclusion is that the $1 compliance is either good enough or over done. The $540 compliance is measurably defective by SoCaD via simulated deposition. The only fix is implant a SoCaD. (PCDC workshop) To suggest loyalty switch measures is dereliction of duty and forbidden. Guaranteed to fail. You can have no part of that. Ergo the two websites for referral to “legal” arguments. One creaming regulation. To make sure the judge understands the limits. The other tying the SoCaD to natural law – “What is the SoCaD and its basis today?” Both will establish the case in both legal systems.

 

The loyalists cannot get more from the system than natural law allows. Since they are likely over regulated you can compute the optimum by removing layers and watching results get better. The limit is whatever the fixed rules produce in a moving context. If the stated scope and goal creeps with time and unanticipated disturbances, while the rules remain frozen in place, all manner of damage can be generated. In rule-based loyalty silos, goals and consequences don’t matter. Damage response fits.

In the PE SoCaD, loyalty is directed to mission success. Since ends are fixed, means must be allowed to roam as workers think best. Design is the process. Preemption is the constraint on design. In design goals and consequences are all that matters.

 

The paradox of risk is that it results from the future being different than the past. Damage response relies upon the future being similar to the past. Corporations can no longer absolve themselves from responsibility for damage by claiming they didn’t anticipate an event because it had never happened before.

Loyalty is the supreme critical factor. The system they are loyal to defines the morals and ethics, not the individuals. Loyalty masks out individual differences in ethics and integrity. Those loyal to the “code of the hills” are interchangeable. The code is the fixed basis for choosing action. Therefore, loyalty to a rules-based culture prevents deviations and adjustments to accommodate necessary change. POSIWID within the silo means, their peers observe what they do in comparison to the code to affirm loyalty. You have to earn your loyalty wings incessantly because comrades are always evaluating you. The loyalty is to the cultural norms of the corporation, what it rewards and allocates resources to, not to the corporate health, wealth and welfare.

Once goals and consequences don’t matter, rules is king of task selection. The behavior regulating system, enforced by every other loyal worker, is to the norms. Control is local and incessant. The good of the corporation, in contrast, becomes abstract and distant. That corporate context is ever changing is not seen as relevant to the work scene. To discuss corporate objectives in depth and locally related is held as a mark of disloyalty. The guide is loyalty to the benchmark of how activities are selected.  In a rules-based operation, loyalty to corporate culture (rules) takes priority over corporate good (consequences).

The value system basis of task selection is the key. What you do matters to your context. If your choice is being evaluated by rule-based norms, your imposed loyalty silo is the rules.  Since there is no changing the rules, task selection becomes a table lookup. It is work driven by an engineering workstation. It is too closely supervised by peers to deviate outside the silo without being detected and punished.  Regulation is to rules, rules have no change mechanism, so cultural norms solidify around task selection by the rules. It becomes so ingrained and habitual, no one knows how to change the rules without freaking out the barnyard.

For the rules-based SoCaD form of task selection, any effort to switch loyalty to a goal-seeking SoCaD form of task selection is totally doomed.  Because a loyalty switch is seen as inviting immediate social punishment, all efforts go to defend the silo right to corporate liquidation. We use our duty to know natural law and warn the public as our excuse for everything. You must reject associating with any effort certain to fail as PE malpractice. The regulatory v tort is the way to teach the distinction between forms to corpoman. The two systems are out there and plain to see.

As PE, you are both systems. You know regulation SoCaD ($1) and you know tort SoCaD ($540). To find the task selection loyalty silo in place and assess it as risk managed.  It is a case of economic mathematics. You have allocated 99% of the resources to regulatory compliance and damage response. The $540 exposure is naked. No amount of damage response capability can prevent tort action.

 

Damage response is in-silo for the rule based loyalty silo, while preemption is way out-silo. Regulatory mind set is a loyalty silo.

The loyalty silo zone is validated by the warm response you get you praising their loyalty to the silo. They appreciate, subconsciously, that you can see the distinction between the intensity and quality of their loyalty and the silo nonsense they are loyal to. Regulation becomes an added rule within the silo, without regard for relationship to corporate purpose. Praising their loyalty and diligence is a productive way to get precise silo measurements. Once affirmed, you make no further comments about the rules one way or the other. It is a dead end. To place attention on the rules abets the conspiracy that the rules are directly connected to the stated ends. The $1 risk SoCaD is managed. What about the $540 risk SoCaD you also represent?

We need to lean on the separation of means and ends frequently in baby steps. Tie your arguments to law practice.

Use the walkthrough feature of virtual dynamic simulation for house remodeling to get the spouse to find fault before construction starts.

Preemption and deterrence requires knowing what it is you are trying to prevent.

Corporate compliance programs will not protect the company from liability and prosecution under tort law.

It was enforcement and enforcement alone that kept PEs down. We are Sampson and they cut our hair. It worked. Now that the damage is so big, the public wants something done about it and the law already in place points right at the PEs. The responsibility to preempt has been there the whole time. There is no basis for making more law.

Just use the same laws they would sock on you if you were guilty of malpractice. PEs are officers of the court, custodians of natural law, and have a duty to warn. Warn means preemption, we use natural law to preempt, we alone as custodians of naturalism provide the SoCaD to the judge. Engineering is everything to the public and that makes them our client.

 

The choice of bankruptcy has precedents in cartel law. It’s all the same via naturalism. Clutch tightly to natural law. It’s going to be a hell of a ride.

The insight is that incentives do not drive a loyalty switch – carte blanche. Incentives will shape within a loyalty silo, but the corpo BaU will persist no matter what. If the loyalty includes illegal behavior, incentives will not stop it. Don’t even try.

What you do is report to them that they are cool with the one dollar law and fully exposed with the $540 law. Praise their rules conformance via hard working dedicated loyal employees. Then, show the mismatch to the $540 SoCaD – which you represent. Reject all thoughts of incentives, ethics, etc. and offer the SoCaD implant as the only way. You are required to know all this to warn. You are exposed to malpractice action if you didn’t see naturalism at work.

There is no pocket of law that deals with corpo that has any different experience with “regulation and incentives.”  It is always the same. The loyalty silo that caused the wreckage that bore the regulator gets into a code-decode balance with the regulated. None have engineered a loyalty switch – even at great expense. Loyalty is supreme and you can take it for granted. Check the matchup of appropriate selection and there is your plan of attack.

Always applaud the loyalty to the “rules.” Compliance with the dollar law is affirmed. Your loyalty silo, SoCaD tort, used as reference shows total exposure to the $540 law. Offer the demo mock trial simulation to illustrate. Deny the knee jerk reactions preemptively – no regulation, ethics, incentives. In view of what is known, it is malpractice for you to be associated with any attempt to loyalty switch. A total waste of resources. Give the fix as SoCaD implant in stages and let them choose. This report will burn a hole in the desk.

 

I will be conforming to the code of professional practice. There are several reasons for the commitment of my loyalty to the Professional standard one being that I can’t afford the malpractice insurance.

Three senses of will: appetitive will (want), rational will (choose, intend), striving will (efforting)

Avoidance. The avoider produces more by surviving copiers. Changing something that was going to happen to something that doesn’t happen.

John Horton Conway: “the complexity of a living individual (system) minus its ability to anticipate (context) equals the uncertainty of the context minus its sensibility (system).

The transitions are so regular, so unexceptioned in our experience, that we have been able to codify them into the future. There is reason to believe we inhabit a universe in which this process of discovery can go on yielding more specific, reliable, detailed and accurate predictions. There are absolute limits on our abilities to predict the future.

Daniel C. Dennett

“Scholars in their traditional ivory towers have never worried much about their responsibility for the societal impact of their work. The laws of libel and slander, for instance, exempt none of us, but most scientists do not make assertions that, independently of libel and slander considerations, might bring harm to others, even indirectly. The idea of malpractice insurance for philosophers, mathematicians, historians and cosmologists is ridiculous.

But in those fields of applied disciplines where the stakes are higher and more direct, there is a long standing tradition of being especially cautious. Particular responsibility is taken for assuring that no harm results. Engineers, knowing that public safety may depend on the bridge they design, engage in focused exercises with specified constraints posed to determine that, according to all current knowledge, their designs are safe and sound.

Scientists need to recognize that their words might be misunderstood. The engineer who designs a system that is potentially dangerous if misused is just as responsible for the effects of misuse as for the effects of appropriate use. He must do whatever is necessary to ward off dangerous misapplication of the system. Truth is not enough. Sometimes the likelihood of misunderstanding of one’s true statements and the anticipated harm such misunderstandings could propagate will be so great it calls for silence.”

Incentives:

There is an illusion that incentives come first and if you can regulate incentive you can regulate the outcomes people produce. If you give the people incentive to not do evil, you will get good.

 

We don’t often worry about designing incentives for good works. Most incentive worry is about deterring what we call bad outcomes. The focus on incentives usually ignites after protracted adverse consequences from organized activity.

The incentive illusion assumes that the performer possesses the full knowledge and competency for the entire spectrum of good and evil outcomes. That is, the worker can achieve anything and the trick is to give him enough incentives to achieve whatever it is that you want or the reverse. Tweak the worker incentive dial and you control the outcome. This fallacious assumption is revealed when you blame any and all failure of your incentive system to get the outcome on the integrity and character of the actors. You sent the message via the incentives and it fell on deliberately deaf ears. Incentive is not the same thing as force.

Since the incentive-controls-work illusion is commonly held, it is the management tool for all problems.  Management is very uncomfortable with the skunkworks.

The outcome is actually set by the run in of task selection with natural law. What is the basis for task selection? Is appropriate selection requisite for the particular conditions or not? If the conditions call for intelligence and rules were used instead. (it is always the responsibility of someone to monitor the conditions to decides rules or brains). Loyalty to task selection mode rules over incentive. Oh my God, they’re trying to engineer a loyalty switch in a solidified institution. Whoa!!! You’re asking concrete to turn itself into maple syrup. It’s like thinking if you scream hard enough at a pile of straw it will turn into gold.

If the regulator needs professional loyalty, install one. If the context is rules loyalty, it will freak out and you will have your answer. You can’t lie to a skunkworks. It is far too knowledge oriented and in rules, the knowledge about goals, consequences and controls doesn’t exist (as a badge of loyalty).

What you do with a mismatch is make the case for it. Avoid the loyalty switch fix, explaining why – there exits the incentive system in its entirety. The answer has to be: do not attempt to fashion a loyalty switch. Install the complete stable system centered on SoCaD loyalty and set it free. You need to deter the knee jerk reaction to incentivize the rules-loyal as much as practical indicating the SoCaD loyalty fix as the way to go. You must be a champion to crush the loyalty-switch incentive option as contrary to natural law. The whole bent of rules-based operations is to repel all attempts to change the order of battle.

The people attitudes are shaped by loyalty aligned with the necessaries of work. Individual variation enters the scene only when loyalty to SoCaD aligns with the work scene and then, behavior is shaped by the skunkworks interaction. The skunkworks regulates behavior to be “professional” on the spot. Rules forces all behavior to be identical. Either way, individual propensities are submerged to the dominant engineering work station loyalty.

Make the case that individual variation enters the scene only in appropriate selection only in special circumstances – in windows of ingenuity demand time that open and close. It is continual, not continuous. If individual variation doesn’t matter to the task-selection system, why waste resources trying to mold it? When the window of ingenuity does open, you can do no more than set the individual free to do so. Creativity cannot occur under force.

Why did all those supervisory layers occur? What were the protracted consequences that happened that drove the formation of another ring on the onion. You need to know that history. Petro and ACE. You already know the layers fail, what you need to appreciate are the driving forces which begat them in the first place.

Be no party to a loyalty switch scheme as the embodiment of professional malpractice. It is critical and essential to establish your loyalty post clearly and early in the client relationship because everything you do will be in reference to that benchmark. You honor their loyalty at every turn and, eventually, they will see the distinction on their own. Later on you make the case for avoiding loyalty-switch incentives as an option. When you cream regulation by punishment, you cream management’s hammer.

Incentives work to a point within a match. Internal competition can be good. When the incentive is to switch loyalty profile to one incongruent with the norm, it is a waste of time.

That the incentive of regulation is counterproductive is exhibited when the regulated complain of the extra work required to feed the regulator. This signals that the regulated have no intention of reform and the overhead load to fool you is considered excessive. Like the decoder complaining when you changed the code book again.

You avoid loyalty switch because it must fail and SoCaD forbids failure as an option. Note how the saying is worded – you can’t always choose success because it is unknown. But you can recognize failure when you see it coming and change course. You can have no part in a scheme to get the workers to switch loyalties. To do so is dereliction of duty. You are required to know this.

The key to watch in each case is the mode of task selection compared to the situational demand. Do this check firstly.

What I say is if you need brains over rules, forget the incentives bit, install the damn brains process and give it a cell phone. You’re asking for a loyalty switch – but it is paramount over the schedule of punishments. Rather than incentive for a loyalty switch, install the loyalty needed and help it defend itself.

Behavior = choice of action

COURAge creates a “trail” showing the SoCaD was met.

 

The marriage of civil law to design.

The initialization step is always professional duty. Start with your loyalty to the law that applies to your profession. It is the $540 law. What they do is the dollar law and pray for no damage.

The trick is to stage closure via a mock trial with the PL cross examining the designer as if there was damage. You tie the simulated trial to the duty you came in with. In big jobs you actually bring in an outside PL, trained by you, to deliver the exam. You act the PL throughout the contract heralding what is to come. Closure comes in when you claimed your duty to tort saving the client the $540 and let the regulation matter slide to the $1 it is worth. The SoCaD with the regulator website puts regulation on the defensive – preemptive strikes.

The arguments are the same in the test trial as they would be for real. The PL attack is the same independent of the damage, so that if you can withstand one damage event, you have demonstrated immunity to all. The mock trial validates the promise to eliminate risk.

The mock trial would serve the COE and the Reserve. It drives home the distinction between regulation and tort professional malpractice. It is the designers nightmare and the failure of BaU. It shows the exposure extant. It shows BAT and SoCaD and the exposure. By using a lawyer and outsider, you are affirmed.

The exam is really COURAge as benchmark. Deming used to be the court and beat up on the designers.

 

Over time civil law has perfectly adjusted to serve each form of organized operation, separately, with the law tailor made for that form. Civil law is a repository of benchmarks for the methods of appropriate selection shaped by long experience. Civil law holds the fundamental frames of reference for the appropriate selection of activities. Civil uses these proven, trusty benchmarks to decide if your choice of action was or was not appropriate to the context and circumstances. Civil law makes small course corrections to accommodate the advances of society. The fundamentals of appropriate selection do not change because the natural laws that govern the affairs of man are immutable.

You can develop the operational forms of method from the application of the natural laws of systems and dynamics or you can study the law which evolved from experience with what people did to preserve or threaten society. Both approaches will end up at the same plane.

 

There is only one corporate “culture.” Only the scaffolding of rules varies among corporations.

Individual people factors regarding ethics and morals are totally irrelevant.  It is not loyalty to a value system that determines the outcome. It is whether or not appropriate selection is used for task action. When task selection is appropriate, individual characteristics don’t matter. When task selection is inappropriate, individual characteristics don’t matter.

If the selection of activity is appropriate to the conditions, the work context that spontaneously forms to support the activity always superimposes the same structure on individual variations. When selected activity is inappropriate, all individual variety is suppressed to the same pattern.

Natural law force fields influence with appropriate selection is supreme over behavioral norms.

There are only three stable states possible. All else is transient or otherwise unstable.

Appropriate selection has two cases, rules and goals, as a function of application conditions. One is loyalty to rules (habit). The other is loyalty to mission by the SoCaD (problem solving). The third stable state is loyalty to self-preservation while embedded in a mismatch

Your own attitude towards the undertaking is shaped by appropriate selection – habit or attainment. When inappropriate is manifest by outcomes and you can’t realign, loyalty to self-preservation takes over.

Society is never served by the managerial ploy to assign responsibility for achieving a specified outcome while restricting the approach to specified means. It is no less an insult to natural law for a supervisor to demand goal attainment tied to obedience to a fixed procedure that it is for a worker to accept responsibility for ends when his hands are tied to unalterable means. While much of society may tolerate the logical chicanery, the law does not. If you have contracted to results, the law grants you freedom to choose means. If you have contracted to methodology, the law releases you from responsibility for whatever consequences the method delivers.

 

RGP: COE private honcho closeout  – “What do you want me to do – my duty or cook the books? Is there some way you can think of to get the truth across and preserve both our loyalties? What of the truth can serve you and how can it be achieved without causing loyalty damage?

When he chooses for you to be disloyal to your system, he gets the guilt of the future. You offered and did the ultimate for him – broke loyalty. Make the honcho be creative. The truth is incontrovertible and will not go away.

Conflict with an engineer connected with natural law is like wrestling with a pig in mud. After awhile you realize the pig is enjoying it.

 

The death of hope

Priority was given to his interests over his obligations.

Violative conduct

CEOs seek optimum way to maximize their goal and cooking the books was effortless.

The limits of achievement of the system you are loyal to are not negotiable.

Holding constant the recycling of rules in a changing context is a guarantee of performance decay.

Impact – warranty

What regulation does. Logical trickery shifts the objective from the mission to its rules. It is legally enabled only to punish and what it punishes is nonconformance to the rules. It does not punish you for failing to attain the stated purpose for the regulator. Regulation is a constant expense and operationally intrusive. Punishment for nonconformance to the rules is unrelated to damage events. The legal process does not involve a jury. Judgments are rapid and chump change.

Tort is zero cost before damage. Subsequent to damage, restitution costs are a function of compliance to the standard of care and diligence (method) exercised before damage.

History is nothing but the carvings of natural law on the rock of ages. The imprint of natural law cannot be concealed. It is too nested, too linked, to broad.

There is no greater range of possible relationships available to nations than to any three individuals. The development of relationship consequences over time is the product of natural law – and nothing else.

The engineers have no place to hide. If we are faithful to natlaw, we don’t need to hide. If we attempt to bend natlaw, no place in the universe can harbor us.

As PEs, it is recognized that society will have a place and role for faith in magic and miracle. At the same time we note that the sum contributions of all the magic, arcana, wizardry, and miracle since the dawn of man to the understanding of natural law is – zero. This built-in advantage to the faithful in supernatural only exists in social affairs. When the engineer fails, he is blamed for objective incompetence with natural law. When the wizard fails, he blames the whims of the spirits. It is pure social value. The laws themselves, in instructing what material will do, are indifferent.

When we are fully, rigorously and scrutably connected to natural law, we encourage unlimited independent validation. If completeness is lacking, the flaws are so easily detected, it is pointless to declare otherwise.

To the degree you fail to align with natlaw, is the degree of incoherence and dead ends you will encounter. It is the pursuit of the impossible.

The worst that can happen if you do the SoCaD is pay a small fine to a regulator for noncompliance. If you select action based solely on compliance to regulations, you are assured of violating the SoCaD. Big penalty.

Preemption is an invention. You take the facts, which point nowhere, and cook them into a future.

RGP basis to COE truth is the PE duty to warn. A higher authority?

OTA never includes anything but rules. No appropriate selection. Preemption requires a critic cycle of goals and heed to consequences.

It’s a tribute to OTA loyalty that the victims can dwell among the mayhem and wreckage and not notice anything toxic going on.

No master brain is working the puppets. The intelligence it seems to have is an illusion created by the indifference of natural law. The uniformity and repetition of activity is the handiwork of natural law and nothing else. It is the destruction of variety which is always the consequence when activity encounters the operational reality. The uniformity of consequences with human inputs of such wide individual variety is always the product of action choice encountering natural law.

The law never locks action with ends. Corpoland thrives on it. It is the big destructive lie. How do you stop the lie?

Society uses engineers to preserve them from the kinds of harm that comes from attempting to defy material natural law. While we have a design role for the damage response industry, the primary mission is damage preemption. This consists of informing and warning prior to the consequences of acts.

You can watch the scenario grind on. Like the internet, there is no top to this and it has gone synergetic and self inflationary. The CEO value system is fixed, the lawyers have the laws to get them, the economics for enforcement are there. Society is trepid. It lives in a designed world it understands less and less and it ingests a media blitz about all the fraud in a perilous world.

 

The sea change in corpoworld is occurring even though it has no “head.” Punishment of the leaders is becoming a profitable sport, egged on by the public. The CEOs have lost the ability to muzzle it. We have time to work our trials. I see the website stuff as tools in doing clients and marketing. By making the case to the judge, you catch everybody else. Get the judges escalated and then everyone has to try to catch up.

The duty is the excuse for action. Duty is the initialization.

Regulation is a closed system based on analysis

SoCaD is an open system based on synthesis

Big damage by insured corpo leaders gets several linked regulatory, statutory agencies and towers of insurance. Insurance loses will close the gap. The public doesn’t want bad corpos to get over by insuring themselves for the cost of getting caught for wrongdoing.

The advance of the technological tools to implement the SoCaD preemption methodology, more practically and thoroughly, is manifest in several forms. Less engineers are necessary to do the same amount of work. The designs are more appropriate to the service. The lawyers win cases easier by showing the damage caused from not using it. The scope of wrongdoing is increasing along with the ease of demonstrating it in tort court. Fewer engineers and more lawyers. As the public becomes more aware of wrongdoing, by reference to their escalating expectations – “public interest,” the pressure on enforcement increases.

 

They are all locked in a closed system that cannot think new or fix itself. It is closed to criticism. Of what possible value is this mindset to further the core science and motivate appropriate reforms. They can’t think out of the box even if they are on the fringe. Pushing this technology is an individual effort. All of the greats did it on their own.

To assess: 1) get the novelexity (novel including disturbances and complexity of numbers of relationships) at the workface 2) see how the critic cycle is either encouraged or discouraged. Ask to see the policies for encouraging preemption. Reward history for damage responders. Budget for litigation compared to design/preemption.

You cannot expect a corpo that forbids the tasks of preemption to provide early warnings about damage.

Since we are attacked as individuals by our own guild for post-damage failure and not supported pre-damage for doing our duty. No organization will support preemptive action. Preemption is always the result of individual duty. If you want warning before the fact of damage, you will have to allow submittals by licensed individuals because you will not otherwise be warned. Since this is preemption, individuals is the only way you will be informed. The case is so strong that arguments can be submitted for examination to anywhere without concern of error. The whole point is to inform the court of infallible existence so they use it. The infallibility is exactly the attribute you want. Examination is encouraged.

If corporate loyalty means OTA rules-based task selection, and nothing else, most of the tasks requisite to reliable preemption will be attacked as alien – acts of disloyalty. If novelexity is above the threshold and the critic cycle is suppressed, nothing can save the ark. It is only by preempting off-course movement that the destination can be reached.

The outrage is not over the issue preempted at all. The fanaticism is that you had somehow escaped the detection system with the audacity to perform the preemption function. The corpo loyal failed to excrete the aliens. Saving their lives has less value than the loyalty blemish. Thanks, but.

Preemption in corpoworld takes courage to do COURAge. The reason risk management is not preemption is because the requisite tasks are forbidden to the corpo loyal. You will never be warned by institutional process in time to avoid damage. Corpo is biased to damage response. Show me the policy encouraging preemption process in its details, what is installed to make preemption safe and convenient.

Your angst is ignorance-driven. You have been blindsided to live with the loyalty conflict and the sting of producing defined ends with specified means. To remain at the loyalty crossroads takes more strength than you possess.

You are witnessing the linked network web backfiring on the CEOs. So many linked towers of insurance have been created to safeguard the corporation, when the leaders do fraud, the floodgates to the treasury are opened.

The Establishment made the laws to keep the public under tight control. Lawyers were directed to selectively enforce the laws on the public.  This occupation became so lucrative the number of lawyers is rising exponentially. In order to support their growing ranks in the manner to which they have become accustomed, lawyers have had to expand enforcement in many directions. They lost the discrimination aspect in order to feed their families. It is the greatest legally sanctioned transfer of wealth in the history of democracy.

Connect the fact of method technology to 1998 when universities made more lawyers than engineers. Lawyers are using method technology to deplete the corpo more than engineers all allowed to use it to preserve the corpo. More litigation than R&D.

It’s not what you can bring to the corpo to save it. It is what you can do to save yourself while corpo plummets. And position yourself for the future. The answer to corpos indifference to you is to focus your efforts on you. If you want to save others, you must first save yourself.

 

The trend is towards PE duty loyalty support. Duty to warn. Sell to PL. Insurer.

Frictional costs

Fiduciary responsibilities are in infancy enforcement. Pressure is building to prohibit insurers from insuring corpo wrongdoing litigation costs. It counters the intent of the punishments to influence choice.

The problem regulation by standards has is that it forces a displacement of preemptive thinking. It penalizes thinking at the work face. To avoid penalty, comply with the rules. No promise that doing so will preempt tort litigation. Why not? Because the tort standard requires the very method regulation attenuates.

There is no one fixated on a different loyalty to say anything to directly except praise their high loyalty. No amount of logic will bump them from BaU. So, don’t try. One strategy that does something for us is to make them choose their corpo loyalty again as a chip to play in the post-damage future. That demo shows the futility of their other transactions also. When we show they are a waste of time for us, they see the waste amongst themselves. Giving them non-normal just escalates their angst.

We take civic duty of PE on a personal basis. No one will enforce anything for you or against you before damage. The rarity of preemptive whistleblowers says it all. The judge, however, has the lawyers as objectivity enforcement before his decision can “damage.”

The whole deal is inform/consent/warn – after establishing the PE duty to do so. The duty to warn is our license to print money. The warn issue is designed so that their any choice is profit.

[small business audit to baseline tort litigation relativity. No insurance check. You are uninsured. Get a low-cost exposure strength survey. No accounting. Not forensic accounting. This would be forensic governance. What is your status compared to the SoCaD that will be used against you after damage in hindsight to establish responsibility for damage. Do you now qualify for judgmental immunity? Comply with tort law and you don’t need insurance. You use the websites. To get a tort lawyer to sign off on your report for opinion   You do the site work. He signs off.  The client has a benchmark. Foreknowledge insurance. Pure preemption. Nothing about accounting or regulation compliance. The appraisal is method comparative to tort benchmark. RGP]

The fact is BaU forbids preemptive risk management. The information requisite to investigate risks by dynamic not only doesn’t exist, BaU forbids assembling it. Yours is not to question why. This is the collision with the SoCaD.

The limits of displaced supervision. If not rules, novelexity requires work-face participation. Time-displaced supervision requires a feed of prophecy and history at a cost which forces the work face into defense by rules.  Supervision is control theory writ large. Only with rules as matched does prophecy and history work. The keys regarding appropriate selection are goals/consequences and work face disturbances.

We signed on to an ethics code that requires preemption – duty to warn.

Then we are abandoned, aggressively, by every institution, to act to the code at our peril before damage, by a system that will destroy you after damage by backfitting the SoCaD benchmark to your actions prior to damage. They require your loyalty to a value system in opposition to your duty so that, when damage brings litigation to recover, you will be the negligence fallguy.

Link action games to dynamic simulation to natural law to computer technology (Ashby) to preemption to duty to warn

The CEO IQ test. They say they want an “in between” a passive board and an alternate government. A passive board is uninformed, cheap rubber stamp. The CEO does as he pleases. All in between is the worst of all worlds. Expense to partially inform and get decisions made on partial info at a price. If your going the supervise you got to meet the threshold standards.

Think about what basic supervision duty is. Either help the work face productivity towards the goal or stand aside. In complexity/novelty (novelexity), to really help the work face, you better be there. In routine, supervision is communicating the rules and acting as the rules guardian. Set up rewards for OTA rules. The cases where regulation fits the mission, it never gets to litigation. The mere fact of litigation means a misfit of supervision to the mission.

 

If it’s so easy to recreate the scenario after the damage, why aren’t our watchdogs doing this to prevent it? (games and media) as part of their duty to warn?

PE duty to warn (preventable disasters) when have direct responsibility for relevant work by checking or certifying the design. It involves when, who, how and whether to. When they want you to warn they make it easy. When they don’t, look out.

It is no secret that the law profession has never supported PE preemption duty during the century the duty has been on the books. Plenty of punishment for same thing after the fact of damage. Lawyers are agents for the enemy.

When the goal is to meet the statute, look at the statute. It is prescriptive on tasks to be done – oblivious to goals? Regulation makers look for generic tasks to be done for any goal. No guidance on preemption. Can’t do both. To guide on goals is a small pamphlet – code of ethics. To guide on tasks is a library of instruction books.

What do regulators do when big damage is inflicted by the regulated on their watch? Increase intensity of that which previously failed.

Regulation is created in the same format as that used by the regulated to drive its creation. Having the same limitations, the employees are interchangeable.  If the regulator did on SoCaD, they would not be. The circularity ease is proof of ineffectiveness.

RGP: use the law stuff only to contrast the two benchmarks. No purpose to teach law stuff itself to anyone.

You can only afford to sink into details after classification.

How do you find goals? POSIWID

Critical thought is the signal of disloyalty to BaU, monitored incessantly by all members.

Persecution of the preemptive whistleblower is the manifestation of BaU loyalty. It’s that feeling you have when you return from a conference.

The SoCaD is loyalty specification of ends with a few general qualifications on procedure and implementing tooling can and does change the best goal-seeking procedure.

Compare structure of a regulation (means instruction) to that of PE ethics code (ends).

It is to my credit that I stopped pursuing the impossible. The time it took is not commendable.

What is happening is that as the public acquires more computer power capability awareness, it becomes less tolerant of the failure of design to preempt damage, to fully explore the what ifs. The sting to the public comes in with every calamity when the media quickly produces experts who show vividly how it could have been avoided (if only they had tried such easy stuff). Tort law in particular follows the public expectations. If they can instantly replay the calamity after the damage is recorded, why didn’t the peril get attention before it manifest? If it’s so damn easy afterwards, where is this stuff before?

Rather than deal direct, the public relied on its professional watchdogs to give them warnings. That trust is gone. They repeatedly see how easy it is to do. Sooner or later they will see that the process itself of looking preemptively before damage doesn’t exist (in BaU). BaU is to run a hierarchy as the engine (means) of choice to generate wealth and power to serve the personal ends of topmost.

Public-driven changes in priorities. Expectations are changing. They are bombarded with the perils and hazards and threats and risks about the globe. They see their watchdogs are either ineffective or complicit. Then they see how most of the dangers, with the information available, could have easily been foreseen and prevented. They find out that more than 90% of the substantial R&D performed on public hazards is done to support legal action and the knowledge so formed is kept from reaching them to prevent damage.

The persecution of corpo management will continue. There is no lack of wrongdoing and nothing has changed in its generation. Parts of law enforcement have found it to their advantage to prosecute and there is no stop rule. We have a self-propelled process. The more they get nailed, the higher the insurance. When they drop the insurance and persecution continues, the instant choice is to steal what they can legally via bankruptcy. Once chosen, retrenchment locks in and it spirals inward.

 

The PE ethics code assigns the goals for which members are responsible. It does not tell them how to accomplish these aims. We are to use our learned engineering wits in this mission, of course, and where do we engineers go for the how-to for achievement? Our resource is engineering fundamentals and principles of action, otherwise known as natural law. We must start with the incontrovertible laws of nature because of a morbid fear of inadvertently attempting to defy them. Our colleagues will usually forgive our foolhardiness, but will never forgive shaming the guild by pursuing (what should have been known to be) the impossible. It’s OK if your latest model toaster doesn’t dominate the marketplace, but don’t get caught trying for perpetual motion.

The speed by which calamity scenarios are accurately reproduced in virtual form is the measure of the power of the tooling now available for design. When the public sees how rapidly and realistically the behavior of things can be simulated after the damage event, it is a short step to asking why these possible outcomes weren’t investigated in the first place. It is even shorter to ask, what did you do, during design, about the perils and hazards and probabilities of making damage. What where the design basis accidents, on what basis did you select them, and what did you do to evaluate their dynamics?

Loyalty to duty (means responsible) is the corporate norms of OTA rules. The standard is a succession of defined, routine tasks.

Loyalty to duty (responsible for ends) is to, within certain limits, use whatever means is effective in attaining the ends.

The fact is a rigorous methodology framework for attaining specified objectives, fully and scrutably connected to natural law, has been available since 1962. The tooling to make it practical has arrived.

The design we do for the future changes the future it will encounter.

When you get into reasons for stalling, when the evidence is profuse, you classify yourself. If you won’t get yourself out of the way, there is no value to further interaction. The great technology-driven transformation in design cannot be deflected. It presents a direct challenge to BaU that will not go away. To stand at the loyalty crossroads requires more strength that you possess.

The truth must be told indirectly by reference to a transaction in a relationship that will be taken as objective. No cartoons, admonishments and comedy to cloak the truth. It informs but it doesn’t work, it’s a blind alley. First explain our “legal” duty to warn. The only thing we can do is explain and do our duty to warn. We set them up as bright and loyal to a system with limits set by natural law – far short of the limits set by another system enforced by law to which they are exposed. We warn them of the exposure to system B standards by system A misapplication. The fruits of system A, when inappropriate, will be enforced by system B standards.

It is the system that must be damned, not the players. Rules makes individuals function as mindless robots, no choice. SoCaD makes individuals function as intelligent innovators – no choice. The system defines the loyalty. As the engineering workstation drives the work, the system drives the loyalty vector. To pause at the loyalty crossroads takes more strength than you possess.

Summarize BaU attributes and limits recognized in law. Law reflects the history which reflects the operation of natural law. Law is the swing system, damage triggered. If there is damage, the B standard is used. Otherwise A is OK. When damage occurs under A realm, you will be benchmarked for culpability by B.

Tell COE they are classic A – to an extreme. Their MO is A. Their choice. Why do they worry about B hindsight. By B they are guilty. By their choice of A, they are not. If the system is regulations and you uncritically conform, you can do no more within the system. Law plays both sides. Law is dormant on method pre-damage. Do as you wish within the statutes and regulations, which you can disregard with impunity by paying the fines.

The law swings on the hinge of damage. It does nothing to warn you. The professionals have the duty to warn but no legal support.

What we warn is that their loyalty choice system has limits they can do nothing about and that a damage event cannot be defended against restitution. We do not ask them to do anything at all because they are already infinitely loyal to A. We warn because society has assigned us this duty and we are using this occasion to demonstrate compliance. We warn to cover our ass, not theirs. We tell them there is nothing they can do.

When they dropped the insurance, the event-triggered swing of the legal hinge is fatal. Pre-drop, the swing penalties were funded and A could continue on. The price of the rolling out the second benchmark is now high.

You run merrily along on A and should damage occur, you then find out if A was appropriate or not back before the damage. What B does is deal with the damage potentials to BAT before the damage event horizon. Loyalty to B is judgmental immunity.

Amicus: Court is the only place where method technology has social sanctuary. The purpose of the amicus is to safeguard your privilege entrusted to your care so that we can more productively meet our condition of license. It is of paramount importance that you stand completely and firmly on immutable universal principles first, especially before potential adversaries arrive.

There is nothing more troublesome than taking a position that attempts in any way to defy natural law. It is the one sin no deity can forgive.

The position you must have is the one able to show flaws in all others by irrefutable logic. You must hold the best SoCaD. The judge must be BAT. He cannot afford to have other officers of the court on more defendable ground. With the BAT, you should be able to show all other officers as derelict in their professional duty. Without the BAT, there is an exposure to valid criticism.

An infallible position on the SoCaD is available. While this technology is rarely comprehended in its mathematical forms, it is commonly suspected to exist. Beyond dispute. You must be vigilant on classification between the two appropriate regimes. When the process goes bad because of context changes, there are no critics to operate the remedial process.

It is impossible to defend the regulatory methodology inappropriately applied, which is why society invented tort. Natlaw provides no wriggling room.

Loyalty to means, natural law is the ends CEO.

Loyalty to ends, ingenuity is the ends CEO

There can be no such thing as a fixed means to fixed ends connection loyalty. Assuming the responsibility for combined means-ends only takes place with the blindly obedient or the hopelessly ignorant. It is a lose lose proposition. It is deliberate failure with pre-designated fall guys.

Your institution specifies a civic duty as a condition of membership and then becomes an adversary should you attempt meeting the duty. Self-employed, we have no occupational superior to confuse our loyalties.

 

Laws of design with natural law forward and experience backward is the same thing as the tort SoCaD.

The spontaneous inclination of the masses is to gravitate to and lock in on rules. There is no reverse switch. When critics are silenced, the 2nd law is elected CEO on ends.

The caveats on character of personnel attending the regulatory process proponents is the pre-designated excuse for certain failure expected.

 

Four thousand years ago, three hundred Babylonian legal decisions were assembled in what has become to be known as the Code of Hammurabi, after the sixth ruler of the First Dynasty of Babylon. Among these cuneiform inscriptions are several directly related to the safety of engineered artifacts.

If a builder build a house for a man and do not make its construction firm, and the house which he has built collapse and cause the death of the owner of the house, that builder shall be put to death.

If it cause the death of the son of the owner of the house, they shall put to death a son of that builder.

If it cause the death of a slave of the owner of the house, he shall give to the owner of the house a slave of equal value.

If it destroys property, he shall restore whatever it destroyed, and because he did not make the house which he built firm and it collapsed, he shall rebuild the house which collapsed from his own property.

If a builder build a house for a man and do not make its construction meet the requirements and a wall fall in, that builder shall strengthen the wall at his own expense.

 

The concept of failure is central to engineering design. Obviation of failure is the paramount objective. Tort and engineering design are the same thing. Lessons learned from failure are in the wake of any prolonged success. Failure contributes more than success to advance technology.

The principles and ideas of natural law are in our bones, part of our human nature and experience. No technical education is necessary to appreciate engineering principles since personal experience will contain examples of the lot. We are born into a world swathed in trust and risk. Our first experiences of life were shaped by the cavalier human cranes and forklifts in the delivery room. As we grow, the toys that we could not carry soon cannot carry us. We learn that not everything can be fixed. Our own bodies, the oral tradition of our language and our nursery rhymes, our experiences with illness, all serve to accustom us to the idea that failure is part of the human condition.

The conception of the next system design can involve as much a leap of the imagination and as much a synthesis of experience and knowledge as any artist brings to his canvas. Once that design is articulated by the engineer as artist, it must be examined by the engineer as scientist in as rigorous an application of the scientific method as any scientist must make. The idea of failure free is ultimately more important than either economics or aesthetics. The engineer’s stop rule of satisfactory is when his system can endure the specified disturbances to which it may be subjected. It is symbolic of the endless list of possible disturbances to his system that there is no period at the end of what seems otherwise to be a complete sentence. A good system experience is one where the weakest link in the system is never overwhelmed by the largest disturbance to which the system is subjected. Every new design is an experiment.

The process of engineering design is a succession of ingenuity and trials. Each virtual system is examined for behavior under the specified conditions of use after commissioning and revised.  Success is foreseeing failure and creative iterations. Successful design is the residuum of successive cycles of rejection and revision. In the successive elimination of faults and errors considering the future world in which it must function, only the successful elements survive.

Hindsight analysis is as easy as Monday quarterbacking. The designer is expected to win every game his creation plays. It is the duty of the designer to anticipate the disturbances that might invade and deteriorate his system and all claims of completeness hinge upon the ubiquitous “etc.” in the list of limit states anticipated.

The Congressional hearings on system failures (construction) in 1982 listed 6 critical factors

  • communications and organization
  • inspection and follow through by designers
  • quality
  • details and drawings
  • personnel selection
  • timely dissemination of technical data

Least significant is the adequacy of codes and legislation.

Engineers have the high privilege of designing their world. Their great liability compared to men of other professions is that their works are out in the open for everyone to see them. His activity is set in substance. He cannot bury his mistakes in the grave like the doctors. He cannot argue them into thin air like the lawyers. He cannot, like the architects, cover his failures with trees and vines. He cannot, like the politicians, screen his shortcomings by blaming the opposition. If engineering works do not work, engineers are damned.

The requirements of design including use always conflict. There is no reconciliation. The flawless, risk free system is chimerical. All compromised herald an arbitrary failure preference. The iterative process of design by failure converges on sufficient. Assumptions of the future are fragile and short lived. The systems designed themselves change the future into which they will age. A profession without design failures is unlikely to be serving society efficiently. It is the method of design that transcends all the variety of eras and cultures.

 

We live in a designed world and to some extent we never do quite have the world of our making under absolute control. Goals, needs and wants change as much as environments and technologies. Incessant change means that there are many more ways in which something can go wrong. If we retreat with our phobias from our respective assignments and professions, however, we cause exactly what we wish to avoid. We practice with as much assiduousness as we can command and, then, we deal with the disappointments.

We all know and daily make the trade-offs between our needs and wants and our pocketbooks.

Use the law of tortuous negligence

Any duty must have an objective.

Do engineers owe a duty to the public at large to act or refrain from acting so as to promote or secure the health, safety and welfare of the public? Do engineering institutions. What is the congruency between legal duty and the standards of professional conduct promulgated by the engineering institutions. In classic legal terms, engineers owe well defined duties under the law of contract to immediate clients and under the law of tort to those persons whom they should reasonable have in contemplation as likely to suffer damage as a result of their acts.

The range of engineering activities is representative of the whole of organized society, which it underpins. The range includes construction of buildings and structures, devices of transport and communications, manufacturing, chemistry, agriculture and power. Engineering affects the activities of whole populations in various ways. Engineers make vital complex, technical decisions that shape planning, design, production, distribution, operation and maintenance.

Clear failures to act in a manner which hindsight now plainly indicates are regularly aired in the informed press. As the public becomes more technologically and computer literate, disillusionment with engineering performance to deal with various problems develops into hostility and, more significantly, an erosion of trust.

As a condition of qualification, engineers are required to accept and be bound by published rules of conduct of their respective professional bodies. These rules express an intention beyond that required by strict application of the law. There are two significant differences between the codes of professional conduct and the underlying legal principles.

  • No distinction or limitation is placed in relation to the persons who might be at risk of damage in relation to the conduct of the engineer
  • The duty is placed upon the individual engineer irrespective of his situation or status

As regards the public, institutions that benchmark and regulate rules of conduct represent to the public that the regulated members will be required to comply with such requirements, including safeguarding the public interest on a broad range of issues. Institutions do not enjoy any degree of immunity or legal protection. They are vulnerable to negligence for failure to prevent incompetence from being held out as qualified. These bodies cannot regard their role as secondary or as being limited to giving advice and encouragement. Their role encompasses monitoring and enforcement and they should not wait for the courts to define that role for them.

Faithfulness to duty must take into account an increasingly complex statutory network. For centuries, statutes aimed at avoiding damage from particular trades and activities played a significant role. In more recent times, detailed regulations have replaced specialized legislation and placed new duties on employers for the evaluation and avoidance of risks to health and safety. Consequently, regulation has developed into a vast bureaucracy directed to implementation and enforcement.

As the record clearly shows, the development of vast regulatory agencies to meet the aims of protecting and preserving society is a social experiment that has failed.  In terms of actual results and performance, regulation by standards has delivered a limited effect at great cost with no signs of improvement over time. The existence of so much detailed regulations has two counterproductive effects to the business of damage preemption. Those who, through contract or other, assume the responsibility for preventing damage focus on satisfying the letter of the law, by setting up systems and procedures that satisfy the regulations rather than any other objective. Conformance to detailed rules becomes the primary defensive position. History shows that rule-based decision making tends more to encourage than to preempt damage. Secondly, those responsible for compliance have specialized to that end. The effect is to dilute the corresponding expertise and duties placed on the engineers of other disciplines. Since the specialists in regulatory response can be no more effective than the regulations, the net effect has proven to be negative.

While all duties are limited by what is reasonable practical, the offense is committed by creating or permitting an exposure to damage. It is no defense that management has taken all reasonable care to delegate supervision of the activities relating to the damage. Enforcement operates largely after the event by specialty institutions.

While health and safety matters, historically, have buried their victims beyond further concern, other consequences have proven to be more persistent.

 

Legal duties are owed by professionals to a wide, but limited class of persons. Duties to the public are not in general enforceable against individual engineers by or on behalf of members of the public. There are, however, legal principles which will enforce duties where the public interest is concerned, such as might override contractual obligations.

The assumption of duty to the public is given effect through other vehicles. One means is for the professional association to intervene in court proceedings through amicus curiae. The most significant legal association to the public is the duty to warn of serious, preventable consequences. The professional engineer in a responsible position has a mandate to act to safeguard the public interest in matters of health, safety and welfare. He has assumed the obligation to warn members of the public concerning “qualified disclosures.” For the professional engineer, a duty to the public does exist which, on occasion, transcends all other duties under which he operates.

The duty to warn encompasses it all. It is, basically, the informed consent process. It is system design in wolf’s clothing. The duty to warn is our license to print money. Preemptive whistleblowing. The duty to warn, enforcement wise, is a work in process. The public, wallowing in wreckage from negligence, learns from the damage responders that it was readily foreseeable and preventable. This creates the notion about if it was so clearly detectable, why weren’t we warned by our professional watchdogs? The watchdogs are regulators are damage responders.

The duty to warn (public safety, health, welfare) is wide in scope and far reaching. The form and structure of the duty to warn in time to take actions to avoid the damage has evolved from hindsight after the event of damage. The obligation begins with the competency to detect, well before the event, that necessary and sufficient body of evidence to trigger the duty. Since the duty to warn is centered on damage, it is necessary to understand in considerable detail what would be construed, should the events be allowed to take place as foreseen, as damage. This determination is neither simple nor clear cut. Whether to warn triggers the task action dilemmas of when, who and how to warn. In succession, the outcome of the initial warning, ignored, triggers additional obligations to warn up the ladder and make noisy withdrawals.

The tort judge is the only occupation in society where objectivity on method technology has a social system home. US supreme court made it so. Judge is supreme unless he shows contempt for natural law. In order to avoid that he must acquaint himself.

The tools supporting the design process are advancing at a pace that makes significant impact on the scope, speed and reliability of design. Peppered with ingenuity which is the critic cycle on approach. To vary the ends, means must be varied. The framework of design is constant because the gaps which can only be connected by ingenuity are fixed. In synthesis, facts point nowhere.

 

As the record clearly shows, institutions are aggressively reluctant to take enforcement action in support of their members. Discharging the duty of the PE to the public, assumed and required in institutional codes of conduct and standards of care, is contingent upon selfless action taken by individuals holding the public interest paramount..

Protected disclosures:

1 – criminal offense

2 – failure to comply with legal obligation

3 – miscarriage of justice

4 – Health of individuals is being endangered

5 – Environmental damage

6 – Information concealment

No institutional support is provided to prevent victimization of whistleblowers. Pressure groups to thwart effective warnings are in abundance.

The duty exists to the extent that institutions are prepared to take enforcement action. The action taken is all punishment against the engineer. There is no support for duty to preempt and warn. The message? We give engineers the duty and then prevent and discourage him from doing it. He is used only as a pawn and accessory in litigation, too poor to warrant a direct suit. The Establishment doesn’t want preemption and warnings before the damage. Heavily biased to damage response. The prejudice to reward calamity response which is necessarily attended by hostility to preemption, encourages the calamities.

Using the amicus because there is no other vehicle to preempt and warn. The court is the only place duty-bound as a receptacle for objective truth in activity benchmarks. It is only place that will not be predisposed to perceive the information as a profound threat to business as usual.

The lack of legal backing as respects the action of individual engineers requires consideration of other means by which the assumption of a duty to the public may be given appropriate effect. (Amicus)  Protective support for the consequences of faithfulness to duty to preempt and warn is not available from any of the professional institutions or the state licensing boards that promulgate the standards of care and diligence. The principal burden and risk is placed squarely on the individual.

Amicus to describe my interest in the affair and solely self  funded. (no lobby) It will be seen in the brief content itself that no lobby interest in its right mind would support such disclosure. As laid down in “the Ikarian Reefer,” the expert owes a duty to the Court, not to the parties.

Duty involves nature and scope as well as the means by which it may be implemented. It is necessary to define an objective for any duty. There is individual duty and professionals acting collectively through their institutions, as voice or enforcing the SoCaD. Legal duties are not necessarily congruent with duties specified by professional institutions. Engineers owe duties by contract law and by tort to those they should reasonable have in contemplation as likely to suffer loss as a result of goal-seeking acts.

Engineers have no special status under the law of contract and, with certain exceptions, may be held to any contractual duty which they undertake and any bargain they wish. The law supplies an implicit duty to act with reasonable skill and care commensurate with the task in hand. The remuneration is irrelevant to the standard of duty required. The same duty will be demanded for gratuitous services. It is difficult to distinguish contracts which involve illegality and those which only permit performance in an illegal manner.

Tort

The law of tort renders certain conduct actionable by persons who suffer loss. The law operates to impose a duty of care between individuals  in a relationship such that, in the reasonable contemplation of one person, his negligent act may be likely to cause damage to the other. The rule that you are to love thy neighbor has been translated into legal terms. The law of tortuous negligence supersedes the law of contract in succession.

The liability of professional engineers tendering advice is viewed on an analogous footing to advice given pursuant to a contract where the Courts regard the existence of a contract and its parties as immaterial. Engineers will be held to account for the consequences of their advice as if they had been commissioned to carry out the assignment. Where the SoCaD is held as the benchmark, it makes no practical difference whether the wider duties are regarded as based on the law of contract or tortuous negligence.

Engineers have a duty both to perceive and to warn of danger. They are “not mere bystanders.” If there is no duty to warn clients, there is no obligation to the public at large. While the law may recognize and support professional action, it affords no support to the existence of a general duty owed by individual engineers to the public at large. If a general duty to uphold the public interest as set out in professional codes is not enforceable as a matter of law, how is effect given to the rules? What is the duty regarding what is perceived by a professional to be an impending but preventable disaster?

Given the duty to so perceive, there are primary actions to what is perceived to be an impending but preventable injury. The engineering professions in many countries have an honorable tradition of direct action where an individual determines that a preventable situation will injure or prejudice the public interest. Invariably, this duty breaches the terms of employment.

 

The public is not supported by law to an enforceable general duty.

All engineering disasters are seen as preventable in hindsight by timely action by professional engineers.

The bond of trust is lacking.

The floodgates argument

Law examines the function rather than the professional standing of the individual.

Disclosure is risky business with adverse consequences.

Objectively independent service. The duty to be cool with natural law first..

To any PE concerned about his obligation to whistleblow, even well-expressed legal principles and guidance will be of no assistance when faced with the need for practical action.

Look into your system for expressed guidance on how to handle violations and the code for protecting whistleblowers.

Over 90% of a the considerable research and engineering work done about risks and failure is created for the purpose of litigation and arbitration and never made available to the public. Expert evidence comprising original research and testing involving novel and original material is subject to strict confidentiality at the suit of the client, often an insurer. Technical expertise of vital interest to public welfare is withheld by legal process. Where is the profession to protect the public from impending, preventable damage? “Would the great mass of right-minded men in the position of the sentinel have considered it their duty under the circumstances to make the communication?”

Methodologists are in the vanguard of perception of impending, preventable injury.

What the public wonders is if it is so obvious that the calamities could have been prevented by the professional obligation to act, why aren’t these preemption activities undertaken prior to damage?

All disasters are preventable in hindsight.

Amicus on issues of fact and expertise.

“Form follows function” is grossly inadequate to serve as a guiding principle for understanding how artifacts and services have come to look and operate the way they do. There is no fully deterministic argument here. What form does follow is the real and perceived failure of things and procedures to do what they are supposed to do. As the principal method for seeking improvement, it is by focus on the shortcomings that alterations are designed to remove the imperfections. Technological advances have far-reaching implications for the design, manufacture and use of artifacts and services.

The great variety in culture-specific artifacts is a daily reminder that function imposes no single form on the implements used to effect it. The forms are as much influenced by politics and personal preferences as by that nebulous entity, technology. The evolution of artifacts and services in turn has profound influence on social, commercial and industrial transactions.

There are fundamental principles by which all made things and service packages come to look and function the way they do. The central principle revolves about our perceptions of how existing goods and services fail to do what we expect them to do as well, conveniently and economically as we think they should or wish they would. In short, they leave something to be desired.

While the shortcomings of an existing thing are invariably expressed in terms as a need for improvement, it is fundamentally a want that drives the improvement process. Everything is continuously short of expectations in its function and this is the prime mover of evolution. The form of made things and packaged services is always subject to change in response to their real or perceived shortcomings of performance. As nothing remains perfect, and, indeed, even our ideas of perfection escalate, everything changes with time. Future perfect is a tense, not a thing.

Whether or not commerce should have diversity, it does, and capitalism is its proliferator.

Is our unconscious motive for doing so much useless work just to show that, if we cannot make things work properly, we can at least make them presentable? Nothing we design and make ever really works as we say it ought to. Everything we design and make is an improvisation, a lash-up, something inept and provisional. Ubiquitous and incessant imperfection is the great common feature of all made objects and packaged services.

The coincidence of a perceived shortcoming with an imagined improvement enables change for the better.

Design requirements are always in conflict and cannot be reconciled by compromise. All designs for use are arbitrary. Selection is based on what degree and where there shall be failure. As you vary the terms of compromise, you vary the shape of the thing designed. It is impossible for any design to be the “logical outcome of the requirements” simply because the requirements being in conflict make a specific logical outcome impossible.

You must look to failure to ever hope to declare success. Design is a negative process of neutralizing the incongruities, the irritants, the risks, and the obstacles which intrude between form and context. Misfit provides the incentive to change.

The process of appropriate selection will infallibly lead to well-fitting forms because of the central driving principle inherent in the organization of the process. All the agent needs to do is recognize failures when they occur and to react to them and, this, everyone can do. While few have sufficient integrative ability to invent form of any clarity, everyone is able to criticize existing forms. The agent in this process does not need genius strength creativity. He just needs to make some sort of change when he notices failure. The changes may not always be for the better; but it is not necessary that they should be, since the operation of the appropriate selection process allows only the improvements to persist.

We are all specialists in our corner of the world of things. We are all perfectly capable of seeing what fails to live up to the promise of designers, makers and sellers. The Athenian statesman Pericles observed, “although only a few may originate a policy, we are all able to judge it.” Innovation generates the intellectual capital of our society. Professionals will investigate into the future of a product and service package so that what might have been a damning shortcoming of an otherwise beautifully functioning thing will be nipped in the bud. What will be the behavior at the hands of its intended, and perhaps unintended, users?

Shortcomings drive evolution and innovators are the severest critics of goods and services. The realization of what is wrong with the existing sharpens the intellectual focus on how such wrongs may be righted. Fault finding with the made world and disappointment with the gross inefficiency with which things are done dwell in everyone. Leaving well enough alone is a menace to the preservation of any society.

No one can have everything. All improvements have limits and trade-offs.  All change makes a fresh collision with natural laws of conservation and the supreme second law.  Beefing is a great national sport and everyone is glad to pour out a list of complaints to an interested ear, searching for the least dissatisfaction. Universally, innovation and improvement begins not so much in need as in want.

The constructive assimilation of elements into a synthesis of relationships, a configuration of behavior, innovation lies in the completion of an incomplete pattern of behavior and subsequent improvement of patterns that are unsatisfactory and inadequate. The love of improvement.

All design is necessarily forward looking. Design problems arise at several levels out of the failure to function as well as might be hoped, long term consequences, and out of anticipated scenarios involving failure. The designers become more familiar with the elements and problems in ways that few others will ever need to or even want to be.

Natural laws are the conceptual underpinnings for understanding the fabric of technology into which things and procedures are inextricably woven. We all make wrong turns confidently and when this happens the best course of action is to recognize the error as soon as possible and re-navigate. To not deal with the error drives a myopia to focus on another goal. A savvy public is the best check on errant design. The critic suggests improvement and enables a choice between old and new.

The world of design includes what we hold in our hands and operate but also the organizations and systems that produce and distribute. Any alteration can be explained as a response to the real or perceived failure of its antecedents to meet expectations. Even real failures, let alone perceived ones, are matters of interpretation. What constitutes a useful improvement to one client may represent a deterioration to a stakeholder. Discontent is the first necessity of preservation and progress.  Everything is fair game to come under the scrutiny of a critic who does not think well enough is sufficiently free of faults. The call to leave well enough alone has a dismal history in practice.  Successive correction of fault, error and entropy buildup is the soul of advancing civilization.

Tort law is design. The SoCaD is one and the same as the design process. The use of natural law to look forward is equal to the analysis of history to determine the driving forces that laid down the tracks.

When PL shows negligence he is basically showing a failure to apply the commonly known design processes. He failed to look forward.

Society has two very separate, very distinct benchmarks. One is OTA – the regulator cycle. Design is permanently done and declared obligatory to apply as is. The regulator, representing society, presents the design (codes and standards) as so perfect that the user criticism process is forbidden. Obediently follow the fixed design, critical eye off, or risk penalty. If you don’t get what you want from following the rules, societies representatives will equate your disappointment to deficiencies in your character. Here, society considers the basic problem solved and just wants more of the same solution. Here the central organizing principles are artifacts and recipes.

“Maaack, take out the garbage through the garage and don’t forget to put the lid on tight.”

For areas perceived to threaten the preservation of society itself, society has installed control apparatus operating to entirely different principles.  The organizing framework here is method.

“Maaack, I don’t care how you do it, but …” Here society signals that it has a problem, it perceives as a serious threat, fixed. When complexity reigns, the regulatory process enforcing rules is a total design misfit. It doesn’t matter what the rules are, forbidding the critic cycle (as in exterminating the whistleblower) is fatal.

The problem society has is organizing its problems in advance by the two systems it has. It is mismatching the regulatory process to the problem at the cost of the damages accumulated before tort remedy kicks in. Society already has the backstop safeguard system, it just takes too long to kick in.

 

OTA rules is antagonistic to the appropriate selection process. When task selection is fixed, everything related to goals and outcomes drops out of consideration. Recognition of failure is prohibited as well as change to the procedure that produced it.

 

The arguments to law must be based on natural law. To nature, sole proprietor of ends, human intentions on outcome are meaningless. To the degree the focus of human endeavor is not on method, is the degree of failure on ends. The fuss is being made about responsibility for ends and obligations for results, rather than goal-seeking methods is the signal. It is logically absurd to demand ends while oblivious and indifferent to means. It is just as absurd to specify procedures and the ends they are to achieve at the same time. It serves no purpose to challenge nature’s supreme authority on ends. You have zero influence now and you will have no say in the matter tomorrow.

What you do is take the one related thing you can control, which is method, and keep your hands on the control of means while noting the ends delivered by natural law. It only makes sense to work in nature’s zone of indifference. Attempts to defy natural law as it does what it will with your actions is counterproductive and toxic. The mere attempt to do so signals a lack of appreciation of natural law governance on ends which can only lead, sooner or later, to failure. It is very fine to define and specify ends desired, including an allocation of responsibility to achieve them. It is an equally fine affair to define and specify procedures, actions, process and methods. To connect the two in any way is the theatre of the absurd. If you seek an order of battle, you will get whatever nature delivers. If you seek an outcome, however, you must vary means to that benchmark. To take any other course signals a conflict between the supremacy of ends and means. The conflict is always resolved one way or the other. Whatever means are employed will get whatever nature does with them. If ends are supreme and fixed, control of methods will allow man to deliver. If the fixed order of battle is supreme, control of ends by man is destroyed.

 

Whatever they pronounce – nothing is changed. History is but the tracks of natural law shaped by the action choices of man. Man chooses his actions; nature makes the tracks.

Society gave us both the natural law guardianship and the civic duty. It is a unique combination in professionalism. We do this as a favor to the judge. His only risk is that he does something contrary to natural law and we have his insurance.

As a matter of law “Obviously dangerous”

The goal, in contract law, is to give effect to the intent of the parties. Meaning and effect are given to each contract portion as the parties intend each portion of the contract to serve some purpose.

Every error can be recast and advanced as a failure to supervise and inspect. So contract wording to disclaim this tie is effective to relieve liability. Parties to the contract intent the risk to be allocated as a basis for procuring insurance coverage, placing the responsibility for such risk with the party best able to manage it.

Willful = preconceived design to inflict injury. Willful participation in a transaction involving injury. Ill-gotten gains should not be a covered loss. Restitution is not insurable. Insurance coverage D&O limit coverage for intentional corporate wrongdoing.

Intentional can be set by an informed consent event. If it gets the pro off the hook, it must be legal.

The professional is legally bound to meet the SoCaD which is goal seeking-wise much higher than regulatory compliance, which is rules. You cannot have a regulation that requires ingenuity. If the facts don’t point to the answer, you cannot demand the user find the best answer in hindsight. If you need ingenuity, the person must be free to gather and reflect. You can give the framework and sequence in generalized terms but you cannot specify the details. This means that if the regulation is not an exact analytical formula of data to deliver the end desired, it cannot deliver the stated end by itself. Wherever an ingenuity link is involved, the person must be free from the detailed rules. If you want force, it must be rules. If you want ends, it must be freedom.

Praise them for loyalty and due diligence to corpo culture norms and regulatory compliance. Praise them for that quality they value – loyalty to the social norms. Fixation on a system excludes others and you get whatever it is the set course of action delivers. The intrinsic limits of the system (big L) become the limits of what human intensity can deliver – since ingenuity has been eliminated from the selection equation.

The amicus brief is the way to go.  It excludes everyone but the judge who sets format conditions for the amicus to meet. The objectivity demand here must scare corpoman. Declaring under penalty of perjury that the following is true and correct. Our trick is that this amicus is generic rather than a particular case. There is no precedent for a multi-case amicus.

We basically create the “goods” we can take to various nested stakeholders by forcing a bright loyalty choice in lieu of appropriate selection. Choosing corpo rules-based is abandoning appropriate selection.

The methodology of appropriate selection is infallible. Because the course of action builds on human ingenuity, it is the procedure that will, in time, derive and maintain the objective, however complex, with certainty to satisfaction. It is human ingenuity that sets the intrinsic limits of the appropriate selection methodology so much higher than a fixed routine. Appropriate selection covers the realm of the possible and defines the pursuit of the impossible. Fixed selection is in time always a smaller realm.

Policy – a definite course of action adopted for the sake of expediency, facility, prudence, sagacity or practical wisdom. A judicious consideration of the facts.

Control is a process to provide reasonable assurance regarding the reliability of goal-seeking activity.

Compliance with any standard complies with law only to the extent of the condition, practice, means, process, method and operation covered by the standard.

The supervisory cycle is an overhead expense and a potential contributor to the damage.

The two (prudency) standards: one is corpo culture (Supervisory rule-based task selection), the other is SoCaD tort professional (appropriate selection). Regulatory is supervisory and necessary (and sufficient for regulators). SoCaD is both necessary and sufficient for tort. There are many situations of congruency. When the conditions include complexity, uncertainty and disturbance, the two standards are substantially incongruent. By definition, rules-based task selection cannot be expected to regulate goal-seeking activity in changing circumstances. The second law directs that what was optimum in past circumstances cannot remain so. Only when the critical performance factors are taken into account in appropriate selection of tasks can goal-seeking productivity be maintained at professional standards.

The regulatory game is to get you to assume obligations while positioning above criticism. Musical chairs with liability.

To operate to the corporate loyalty standard in inappropriate circumstances is reckless disregard of professional duty.  This is why the congruency test comes first in professional service. Is the (legal) standard by which tasks are being selected appropriate to the circumstances?

It is damage-triggered liability for negligence. In regulation world you are in punishable non-compliance any time the rules are not being followed. The punishment is activity based and not event driven. In SoCaD world, unless there is damage, there is no legal recourse. You have broken the law only in retrospect triggered by an event of damage.

Your job is to determine in the event of damage will the task selection process used be deemed sufficient. Is regulatory compliance sufficient? Should the SoCaD benchmark have been used?

When you live in the urgency, the urgency changes you.

When you live the dysfunction, the dysfunction changes you.

If the notice to the insurance co of the target is not used, the corpo has carte blanche. What I need is the requisites of a sufficient case. They can’t have it both ways. We switch sides as suits our purpose.

At this work face, you are alone and you better know and accept that.

The reason this is an utterly individual quest is that they can’t believe corpo has no hook for changing BaU on the basis of positive or negative incentives. Such acceptance would mean that most of their life has been misdirected. The crowd mills about looking for a trick that might get through, to no avail. They refuse to accept the impossibility. They think more benefits and more punishments – even in face of the record. This erroneous platform is so ingrained that you should not attempt to alter it directly. Refuse to join their attempts but stand aside and let them make more data points.

The first foundation task is to stop trying to find ways to persuade the organization to change. The system is inflexible. The value of your MPS does not matter when it is perceived as a threat to BaU. It is just as wasteful to design benefits as it is punishments. You must first accept the utter impossibility of persuasion to alter BaU loyalty. You can measure the BaU loyalty but you must not try to change it as the pursuit of the impossible. Not intelligent. Not cool.

This means once you have a comfortable handle on SoCaD practice, you address the reality preventing its use. They are not doing to ask for it and they will resist attempts to install it if it is not already the norm. This is why you ask about the method used to select to ongoing tasks. It is either knowledge-based or ritual. They can’t fake the knowledge base.

The best you can do is profit from the driving forces of commerce to persist in BaU. This means finding a way to profit from the wreckage being generated by BaU inappropriately selected. Absolutely no persuasion or demand for it. Investigate, inform/consent, warn and then sell the choice of BaU loyalty to adversaries and stakeholders. This must be done with law both big L and little l.

The statutory regulatory cycle, remote and time displaced from the work face, has a pattern. It sets a standard on means but not really. It claims the reason for itself is based upon ends, which are offset from that acceptable to society.  It then sets up a set of rules about means, making no warranty connection to ends. That is, the regulatory affair does not constitute a guarantee that requisite ends comes from regulatory means compliance. What it then does is make the people regulated responsible for achieving the ends using the stipulated means. If they don’t get the ends, they get more rules and stringent enforcement. It is a version of the old means-ends scam and must be addressed as such. The reason the regulated don’t call the regulators on this is that they can still do BaU at the work face.

Does compliance with your rules give me immune to liability litigation? If I comply, why do I need liability insurance? What is it about tort that I can comply with regulatory standards and still be held responsible to damage from compliance? Now, tort SoCaD, by definition, does in fact guarantee immunity because that is the final ultimate litigation benchmark. The tort standard is to use the BaT(method) for goal attainment considering all the stakeholder interests as you go. Since no better means of preemption exists, the ends of such BAT process fall where they fall without legal recourse to redistribute responsibility. Tort never gets into ethics. It does not call for men of character to make its rules work the desired ends. It benchmarks the means knowing that big L forms the ends.

For the professional, no code and no license calls for liability insurance. If it required liability insurance to cover the costs of non compliance, it would erase regulation. If you make them pay for non-compliance in order to comply? When a contract requires insurance for non-compliance of the “standards” it is a signal for BaU. Contracts do because they fear appropriate selection will not be the norm. The big issue is not the rules, but is the supply of appropriate selection going on in synch with the demand. Rules is not appropriate selection.

When they require liability insurance to pay for costs associated with your “illegal” activity in advance, it removes the legal issue from your activity choice process. It just doesn’t matter. This is why the fallback on good people to make the rules work the ends.

Regulators say that men of character will make their means (rules) directly deliver the ends. If you get the ends, credit is claimed by the regulator. If you fail the ends, it was caused by your ethical lapse.

As the means is locked in on BaU, the regulatory affair is a cat and mouse game that cooperates for equilibrium. The regulated plays along by feeding the prophecy and history. The regulator justifies his existence rationale and the original BaU problem with ends rides on.

What do you get when you meet a standard? If it is the absence of punishment, rather than a guarantee for a goal-seeking boost, you get building blocks. In the time-displaced regulatory process, you have to spend resources and overhead to support the informational demands of a supervisory process (Skunkworks is free by observation) in order to deter interference. In zero-overhead SoCaD, the promise is freedom from results-based litigation, judgmental immunity and guarantee of maximum contemporary strategic productivity and goal-seeking effectiveness (which is a definition of SoCaD).

The tipoff is a focus on personal participant integrity. When a requisite component of your scheme is high personal character, the cause is lost. Since individual quality is assessed by services already rendered, you are relying on the ancient logical trap to get credit for authoring success without the risk of taking the blame for failure. If success is obtained, you credit your scheme. If failure is obtained, you blame the personal character of the implementers.

The first thing to get straight is that deeds determine character. Personal attributes do not determine deeds. Personal character is not a methodology of appropriate selection of activities. The strategy of gathering credentials and placing faith in character has a dismal track record.

Use the ABA as the example where both standards are in the same pew. When they default to character-based remedial schemes, they are knowingly and intentionally avoiding SoCaD they took an oath to. When they say “Without the men with high character, their scheme won’t work” they are saying their scheme does not engender the work which, after the fact, will be graded as quality. If they had these quality dudes in the first place, wouldn’t they select the best goal-seeking methods? Would a quality dude be unaware of your scheme on his own?

What the character-based rules do is continue the tradition of appearing to regulate without being accountable for regulating failures (mismatched cycle conditions).  When the SoCaD was not much better than BaU, pre-1970, no better methodology existed. When the great leap forward came, only tort put it into service. Tort discounts character altogether and harps on pre-damage activities using the SoCaD as the reference benchmark of appropriate selection.

Tort is skunkworks process. Appropriate selection with continuous RBF. In 2003, the SoCaD is

SEC: 1) responsible for control system success 2) responsible for a framework (due process) for evaluating control system success. 3) responsible for periodic assessment of control system success. 4) responsible for disclosing weakness and thereby not claiming valid reporting. This is a clever setup for serious punishment for damage. If you don’t disclose unreliability and you have damage, your controls failed and you are responsible.

Mismatch can invite worker fraud and OTA can invite management fraud. Mgt usually requires OTA to escape with serious loot. When management is stringent, they can fraud. When not, workers can fraud. For every scene there is a fraud-free answer.

This is resolving as a decision tree affair. The variables are work crew cycle time (the frequency of disturbances sufficient to materially reduce goal seeking potency). Project complexity and change in complexity. The administrative overhead to feed supervision and trend. The supervision-work face time delay.  The work crew loyalty demeanor – defense/offense, rules/consequences-goals. The supervision loyalty demeanor – rules/consequences-goals. Supervision reward bias – preemption/damage response. The stringency of rules enforcement.  The methodology used prior to now to select the ongoing activities (the PL interrogation examination) – appropriate selection.

The professional SoCaD has no supervision and admin overhead. There is no time delay. There is no demeanor interaction factor. The SoCaD is the engineering workstation driving the activity.

The appropriate selection cycle – set equal to the SoCaD. How frequently is “intelligence” needed for course corrections? What is the shelf life of the BAT for reaching the project goal before its successor arrives?

 

You audit cycle time (complexity) at the work face. You audit supervision cycle time. You measure stringency of rule enforcement. You measure the overhead burden for supervisory prophecy and history. You measure work crew loyalty benchmark. If the work crew is locked in defensive on rules and the work face is turbulent, you have a mismatch. This is basically the classification step. The tone is always praise of loyalty – every case and all participants. If it is a cycle time mismatch, you inform as to the incontrovertible limits of regulation and the delta of the tort SoCaD benchmark exposure. If they choose to retain BaU, they (willfully) have the exposure. If they can’t take the exposure they must adopt the professional benchmark. What they cannot be allowed to do is have the illusion of both ways.

It is, after all, their display of loyalty that is paramount. The content they are loyal to is immaterial. You glorify that which they prize – loyalty to the empire.

You tell them you must be loyal to the “other” benchmark because you can’t afford to buy the malpractice insurance. This is your entrée to the two systems, one limited and one not. The limit is that BaU, which was the appropriate selection at one time, is no longer appropriate selection. Only appropriate selection is future proof.

The order of battle for RGP consulting work changes a bit and the style changes plenty. The first information gathering goals are to a) gage the cycle time at the work face – the pace of challenges to the work crew in the operational reality, including the administrative overhead load to support supervision. Also b), gage the regulatory supervisory cycle time and stringency.

As you gather this information, you praise corpoman for loyalty to the system. You help him show he is rule-obedient to his superior. You need to know the “real” job site standards as stated and provided and report that the rules are being faithfully followed at commendable effort, citing examples. This is what you report, praising supervision for the same thing. When you praise, they will tell volunteer you the problems for you to judge cycle time mismatch.

You can compare them to other systems doing the same process. This sets the process as common, which they can see for themselves. You then can say they are getting the max of whatever the system can do and that, for those cases, more stringency escalation will not produce more result, but likely less. You grade them for where they are relative to the inflection point. You put them on the curve of good using the system they have.

You defend all the individuals as rule-loyal foremost and that the discrepancies noted would not materially affect the target variables. That sweating discrepancies will not improve the bottom line. Using comparison to other same same systems in other fields, you rank the system at full-loyalty level in its species (dog show). You ease them by forcing the view to the larger Russian doll. Comparing them with other supervisory systems, exactly like theirs, that are failing society also. The same supreme loyalty to the system, which delivers in appropriate circumstances, flips to counterproductive when the application is inappropriate. Evaluate the loyalty separate from the system they are loyal to. Elaborate, with detail, on the hard work evidence of loyalty. By selecting the comparison systems you can show on the curve that stringency escalation is counterproductive (SEC).

The initial milestone is classification and educating the client about the hit or miss of cycle times. The second milestone, if in mismatch, is education about the absolute limits of the rules-based regulatory process and the existence of another goal-seeking methodology having no cycle time limits which, in the event of damage, may be the benchmark used to find them negligent by due process of law distinct from regulatory statues. You set them up as loyal to the standards of a species of regulation inherently limited in application which, in the event of damage, exposes them to litigation by reference to an altogether different species of benchmark that has no limits. The end game is recognizing that it is the system, not the loyalty, that must be changed if the exposure to litigation is to be preempted.

Tort success is the proof of the method system existence and regulatory failures are the proof of its limits. Many examples of each. You’re no worse than … also means no better than. When they see the barrier, they can set their expectations. If they keep mismatch, you promise no benefits. They have to stew on the dilemma. You can tell all the stakeholders of the deliberate informed choice to be exposed to litigation risk.  If they choose to adopt the SoCaD of appropriate selection, you have a client.

You can then, if appropriate, warn that the rules-based system itself, is delivering its max. That, should damage occur while that regulation system is in force, professional systems which have no such inherent limits might be used against them as benchmarks in litigation and if the goal is desired to avoid such litigation – it cannot be obtained with the system in use. You warn them that, if damage occurs, they could be judged in a court of law against an entirely different method system benchmark – one which does not have the limit of rule-based regulation. (in fact this alien-benchmark comparison is going on in abundance all the time – called tort).

Here is where you use the website as your “bible.” You refer them to it. You don’t elaborate because you will be mired in details. You note the connect to natural law and say if they can find a flaw in the connections you would very much appreciate knowing about it. You claim basic duty to the higher benchmark, not the limited one. Like your Dr. You note they have chosen the lower regulatory benchmark, which they are meeting loyally. Your duty is to warn of the exposure, in the event of damage, to the higher benchmark for which they can have no defense.

The proof of BaU rules-based operations is that whatever the issue or disturbance, BaU is always the answer. Work selection is scripture, not an experiment. In the skunkworks, because of the second law, the answer for the next (experimental) cycle is never to repeat the preceding one.

When cycle times are out of phase, more is less. Appropriate selection for each work cycle avoids the phase match problem in its entirety.

What you do is praise the people’s loyalty and indirectly educate about the limits of regulation. The fault goes to the “system” which is being actively being compared to a different system by lawyers at great profit.

Do you ever wonder why commerce transfers more than half a trillion dollars a year to others by legal process? Do you consider this transfer of wealth as arbitrary and capricious or because laws are being broken?  Ever wonder what those laws are?

Tort benchmark is appropriate selection by contemporary professional standards. This means the control cycle is within the goal-seeking work crew at the work face. (Tort doesn’t care what the supervisory cycle was doing). Rules-based operations is task selection by rules oblivious to both consequences and goals.

Our trick MPS is to employ a SoCaD better than what most PLs use in practice. One peek and the PL would run away – he is afraid of change too.

That if any professional were to operate with their system in equally inappropriate circumstances, he could be sued for malpractice. There is an increasing risk that the  system which satisfies the regulator will be seen as gross negligence by the benchmark of tort. Tort uses the appropriate selection method system as a benchmark to audit your efforts. Tort has a century of wild success in showing that the supervisory system is negligent. Attacking the method system object of your loyalty, to tort, is like shooting fish in a barrel – and, they are richly rewarded for this sport. No other profession in the USA, bar none, is more directly rewarded financially by society for objective and faithful duty to the professional standards of its specialty. For all others, the financial benefit of faithful service is to avoid malpractice penalties.

The only reward society gives to other professions and fiduciaries is the opportunity to earn legal immunity from its attack through incessant compliance to the standard society entrusts to its care. We already know what happens when this standard is not applied until after the damage is done by the other systems, because it is happening and none of the other systems have shown, in a century, any capability to attenuate this menace to society.

You must retrain your instincts to praise the loyalty display as separate from the system they are loyal to. Only after making a case for loyalty and a maxed out supervisory cycle can you make the case for the SoCaD system by reference to tort. They must see the problem in the system they pledge to and not themselves. Avoid their system choice issue in its entirety. Show the limits of their choice, that all resistance is futile, and stop. Praise them for faithful service. The conditions of your license require your loyalty to be directed to a different system. You use the defendant amicus as a JPA to make the generic case against mismatched regulatory agencies. That is the guide you use to avoid malpractice. Because if professional duty requires you to act in a way violating a regulatory rule, the amicus shows where such is appropriate and will defend you.

Website amicus one is about the limits of system 1. Any system of regulation, regardless of intentions, where the control maneuvers are out of phase with the variations in the operational reality will, sooner or later, self-destruct. The regulatory agency evokes the same response from all those regulated, regardless of intentions. All must supply the prescribed prophecy and history to the regulator cooked as necessary to preclude an increase in the administrative burden. Documentation from the saint is indistinguishable from the sinner except, perhaps, that the sinner’s submittals will contain fewer errors.

Website two is about the BAT black box capabilities of system 2 tort standard. Tell judge objectivity is such he must accept methodology. Basic derivations.

System science is taught as a coherent whole only in tort court. Here total objectivity and fidelity of the methodology is the source of income!! Tie to nat law and the judge must concur. The higher the bar, the more $ you get. The PL says why did you do that instead of this. His this is the SoCaD applied such that the damage would not reasonably have occurred.

Both systems have huge track records.

The workshop website: derivatives in natural law, tooling and practitioner application skills as connected to tort SoCaD. You learn how to apply the SoCaD to current professional assignments and to evaluate activities of the past.

Do not connect workshop to client added value – it is a waste of effort. No packaging or promotion will trigger corpo to seek this knowledge on its own – negative demand. The fact of negative demand does not support the hysterical conclusion the technology doesn’t exist. It has its own domain of science, history, founders and heroes. While every building block is taught in a university, teaching the combination is forbidden. Harvard returned a bequest to teach this method science.

The road fork on selection is the complexity and change in complexity due to disturbances affecting the main arena. If the work is routine repetitive and not subject to disturbances outside of its comfort zone, rule-based operations with time-displaced supervision is appropriate.

If the situation at the work face is complex, swiftly changing, and is subject to disturbances which will not be accommodated by the actions of the last cycle, the demand is for appropriate selection goal driven..

When work face conditions demand appropriate selection and the company demands loyalty for rules – you get rules and liability exposure for damage. The scene locks in on labor v management. Exposure is a binary switch. You either have judgmental immunity by virtue of your conformance and competency with the SoCaD or you don’t.

The issue is a system conflict not a loyalty conflict. It is rules as auto-select v appropriate selection.

“When was the last time your boss yelled at you for insufficiently preempting the damage; for inadequate goal definition, incomplete investigation of stakeholder needs, perils and hazards. When did he last reward you for your ingenuity, complexity resolution, etc.”

Regulation by time-displaced supervision is an administrative drain on the work crew. There is a cost of regulation to be added to the damage occurring on its watch. The public knows of the collapse before the regulator acts.

Why worry about a stakeholder who does nothing to preempt the damage you inflict on him. If he is a damage responder, he slides off the radar screen. Any stakeholder can protect himself by having his skunkworks with a cell phone. If the corpo won’t allow such, he has his answer up front. If the corpo does, he can supervise by witnessing that the skunkworks is doing the process, by periodic workshops. It is a controlled-environment situation with the method and context for the SoCaD. It cannot be deceived.

What we have done in the last year is certify vast lands of impossibility to treat as such. Where it is impossible (loyalty mismatch), we execute the inform consent warn gambit and notify their stakeholders, and so forth. No push, no pull on the impossible. What we do is (sincerely) praise their loyalty to the institutional system. By praising their loyalty, it sets the stage for the method mismatch. Loyalty selection is a Hobson’s Choice.

Those unable to change by loyalty to the culture of BaU are not given attention otherwise. Neutral. You refer them to the website and require a response – then when they don’t act you have validated the issue on both sides for any further interaction.

The corporate loyalty is in two specific sets. One is the union work crew rules. The other is to the time-displaced supervisory cycle to shield the work crew from outside-in disturbances and deal with stakeholder damage. If the work crew clutches the order of battle book as its sanctuary from supervisory punishments, you can be sure the supervisory cycle is counterproductive. When it is validated, you praise the corpo loyalty. This praise puts them into uniform and locates them as BaU – and therefore no longer of interest as individuals.

BaU is the great variety destroyer of individualism. Depersonalized by loyalty to BaU – act as one.

Regulation is a class of control that fails as a class. It fails as regulator and regulated. The CEO has no more control than the regulator. He depends on cultural inertia to provide the time and opportunity to raid the corporate treasury for his personal account – which is what they do.

Natural law is the one basis where you will not be able to find one expert witness who would testify against it. One sided. Worse than proving the earth is flat and no more than 6K years old against the vast multi-disciplined evidence otherwise. It is the attempt at defying a natural law that one engineer looks for in another so he can lower the boom. No sane defense attorney would put one on the stand. It would be suicide.

The cycle time mismatch: Summer/winter with AC/heat and local weather bumps. Harvey Pitt and his kinder gentler. Tacoma Narrows bridge. The control action was out of phase with the controlled variable. The supervisory cycle adding more admin load creates more damage. When the system doesn’t recognize passing the inflection point and remains locked in the death spiral, it craters. It can not be stopped. The CEO is fast, in an hour he assessed that perpetuation was too much effort, without insurance, and switched to bankruptcy mode.

Congress worries about the burden for regulation v the damage for not regulating enough, some kind of fine line. When the scheme of regulation is out of phase to the system regulated , the fact is there is no line at all. The proof is to go ahead and deliberately over-regulate using the system you have to the extent that no damage is being done. Go ahead, if you think you know how, and push the “line” so damage is stopped. Then you can back off to the “line.” The fact is the system you use to regulate is identical in principle to those regulated. If the control system worked for your clients, regulating services wouldn’t have been necessary in the first place. You attempt to regulate another regulating system, called corporate management, which can only regulate itself to business as usual. When the rules it regulates to are compatible with and benefit society, it is called good. When the situations change and evolve to a condition where following the same rules damages society, it is called bad. The corpo defeats your regulating scheme in the same way the corpo defeats any other attempt to change BaU.

Preemption cannot exist with fixed rules. The reason is the mechanisms of damage inexorably change with time and “new rules” must be invented for each work cycle.

To appropriately select tasks, the freshly updated information must be evaluated anew every cycle.

Once you make the error that the supervisory system is OK choice, the rest is on automatic. When it is in mismatch, more control is worse.

For the COE, show that killing the super cycle for quality will make things better. Etc.

How much more is the work crew video than the history.

The big error is paddle harder when the supervisory cycle is too long. Thermostat control on seasons with AC or heat and you have a cold snap.

“The broker acts in a fiduciary capacity in the commerce of insurance. The import of the fiduciary relationship between the professional and the client is no more evident than in the area of insurance coverage. Insurance intermediaries must act in a fiduciary capacity to the client because of the increasing complexity of the insurance industry and the specialized knowledge required to understand all of its intricacies. Clients are entitled to rely on that professional’s expertise in faithfully performing the very job he was hired to do. That fiduciary relationship gives rise to a duty owed by the broker to the client to exercise good faith and reasonable skill in advising insureds. The professional broker is hired to reduce, if not eliminate, the risk that an inadequate policy will be procured.

Liability resulting from the negligent procurement of insurance is premised on the theory that a broker ordinarily invites clients to rely upon his expertise in procuring insurance that best suits their requirements. The client is entitled to assume that a broker has performed his fiduciary duty. If a broker neglects to procure the insurance, or if the policy is void or materially deficient or does not provide the coverage he undertook to supply because of his failure to exercise the requisite skill of diligence, he becomes liable to his principal for the loss sustained thereby. That duty is not diminished when a policyholder fails to detect the broker’s breach of that duty.”

The professional initialization job is to assess appropriate selection demands on the work crew. Then inform/choice/warn client either get into alignment or lose liability insurance coverage. Show regulation does not = tort. If client selects wrong he gets outcome responsibility without insurance and judgmental immunity.

The “system” is well aware that the methodology exists. When tort makes them pay for damages they teach the method in great detail and precision. Society invests a $T/yr to directly teach the superior method to the most needy. They are the highest paid teachers in history. The method we improve for application prior to damage is, exactly, the benchmark of tort law. That there can be no doubt that such methodology exists is the enormous transfer of wealth, legally compelled for exactly that reason. The methodology we advance is the methodology the law requires. The law is saying that a better method exists, you should have used it (we show you how), and because you didn’t do as we require you must pay for the unnecessary wreckage your inferior method caused. Liability insurance is secured to pay for when you get caught by those you damaged for breaking this law. The chances of getting caught are rapidly rising. Because the gap increases, the more the damaged realize they can be compensated, the more likely negligence will be alleged. At some point the risk is too high to be insurable. The default is bankruptcy.

The SoCaD amicus shows choice by knowledge and total tie to natural law. Because now, unlike 1950, it can be done, the judge is advised to go there first for judgmental immunity. The first task is to protect the judge from peril. The only risk is that the formulated benchmark collides with natural law and this collision is detected by an adversary. The method is infallible. There are many areas now where judgmental immunity will not work where it once would. Knowing where judgment belongs is the trick. Those areas are readily defined. There is a method of knowledge forming of a sequence of tasks.

The methodology is a mighty river system with eddies. It has frameworks of completeness. For major phases, the frameworks serve as conservation laws so that the parts must add up to the whole. It has stop rules a grand finale that declares the proceedings over. What technology has done is make the computation of the behavior of the great complex practical. (accident reconstruction). It is reasonable for the taxi driver to inquire as to the ultimate destination.

Foreseeability is before the now time. The whole labor of foreseeability is bypassed. You plunge in and wing it and let the wreckage serve as your navigational guide. Crisis management. Damage responding is what we reward. By reading the reactions to the consequences of your action choice, you will obtain the stakeholders, the perils, and the expectations of your clients. If you can afford it, you end up at the same level of knowledge. Preemption is fast productive and happy. The other is very messy.

There are powerful social reasons why we reward damage responders and inhibit preemption. The issue of why it is chosen is well understood (website). What matters is that preemption is aggressively opposed as policy and loyalty to policy is expected as paramount. The either or is so powerful it is impossible to confuse them. Kansas and Oz.

Regulators, methodologically identical to those regulated, fail for the same reason the regulated originally failed to meet society expectations on its own. By what rationale is a method system that fails corporate governance suddenly supposed to work for a bureaucratic supervisory institution?

The platform is to savage the time-displaced supervisory cycle inappropriately selected – using natural law. It has made its record. So has tort. Why is regulation a miserable failure and tort so successful. The explanation of one accounts for the other.

SEC: ethics definition – written standards that are reasonably designed to deter wrongdoing and to promote:

Honest and ethical conduct

Full, fair, accurate, timely and understandable transactions

Compliance with applicable laws, rules and regulations

Promptly report code violations

Accountability for adherence to the code

A code of ethics is prophecy, a plan of behavior. You publish the code and then wait for activity damage to manifest (history) which is evaluated for unethical. It is time-displaced supervision. It is a set of rules to be met in appropriate selection of activity.

If you don’t plod through the COURAge sequence, how can you be ethical? If you don’t know your stakeholders and their needs when you design activity? If you do meet the SoCaD, how can you be found unethical? Ethical is when damage occurs, no PL will take the case on contingency.

Compliance programs ala USSG, we now know, fail also. This must mean the compliance program is another time-displaced supervisory cycle working with prophecy and history. The work crew is burdened with reporting as part of BaU. Feeding the supervisory mill with what it needs to supervise. The existence of the time-displaced supervisory layer means that BaU OTA is king. The real rules are what the work crew does knowing in advance it will not be punished. To the work crew, all the rest is administrative burden, consuming resources with no benefit.

If the supervisor really does know what is best to be done, he should be part of the work crew. If the work crew knows more than the supervisor, he has no purpose other than punishment. Their rewards are based upon the lack of reasons to punish.

The key distinction is that the SoCaD and regulation are different species, not different breeds within a species. Loyalty to the rules of BaU with OTA commands an entirely different set of mental processes and responsibilities than loyalty to the professional SoCaD. The two sets are dramatically unlike. Rules is applied fixed knowledge – robot. SoCaD is progressive knowledge formation – correcting errors and making new ones on the fly.

Two different realms

Transactional Malpractice. What kinds of activities should have been done (by the flat work crew) prior to the damage is the SoCaD of tort. These activities are big-time synthesis. Knowledge forming + ingenuity. SoCaD is a progressive knowledge forming sequence of task categories/types each filled with demands for ingenuity and synthesis.

I was only following the prescribed orders (of the hierarchy) is the defense of what in fact was done. Regulations become the façade for BaU, the illusion that the rules of regulation take care the issue as provided. The conformance activity is mostly analysis. OTA. Regulation is hierarchical time-displaced supervision exactly like the institutions regulated. The corpo recognizes regulation as one of its own species, methodologically interchangeable with the same strengths and weaknesses. Leaders of the regulated fabricate prophecy and history for the regulator exactly as the regulated work crew provides to snooker its supervision.

It almost seems at times that the regulated welcomes the cat and mouse game with the regulator.  Did you or did you not abide the rules. Disobedience to Authority, defined in a set of written non-transactional rules, is the benchmark. Responsibility is to the rules, not to a stated objective of the rules.

What the outcome would have been — but for. This is harder to prove than laying out what should have been done.

The SoCaD of tort is methodology alien to BaU.  Responsibility is to a goal-seeking methodology that includes the best available procedures to preempt damage to stakeholders. It is not rules but a progressive cascade of knowledge forming tasks. It is what and when activity types were preformed – not the content particulars. It is – did you do due diligence early on to identify stakeholders and quantify their needs? These alien method worlds come in sets. If the SoCaD is king, purpose is king and if you find one you will find every task in the set. If BaU is king, you will find no SoCaD at all. When BaU is king, the SoCaD is aggressively forbidden. This makes distinguishing SoCaD from BaU a simple matter. It is impossible to mistake one system for the other.

The SoCaD is filled with exercises of judgment but not of task type – the framework of tasks. Our judgment distinguishes us professionals but only in the framework. You are free to complain that the SoCaD professional missed the actual damage scenario in his efforting, but if he did his best efforts in the procedure the law does not demand more. The framework gives us judgmental immunity. If damage occurs without the SoCaD, there is no judgmental immunity.

Restitution. Rectify. Make amends

Courts decisions interpret the “reasonable belief” standard liberally, to encourage internal complaints and corporate compliance.

Safety = understanding the risks and being prepared. A two-step affair with forming knowledge prior to activity selection and design. Both steps require ingenuity. Safety is design. Another word for safety? Make it tortguard. Lump safety in with quality, et al, and include it as one of those elements that preclude allegations of tort. The master goal is SoCaD compliance. If you met tort, you were “safe.”

The concept of “damage” is extensive. What it is and to whom is not obvious. If you do BaU, damage is an undiscussable. Damage then is defined for you, without effort on your part, by allegations after it occurs. You then enter damage response mode where all the rewards are concentrated.

Method, not artifacts, is the key focus because only by method do you avoid tort for damage responsibility. The “out” provided by law when damage results from activity is the professional’s reward for compliance. Judgmental immunity. It is a key success factor.

You will be successful when you have handled the matter such that tort will not hold you responsible for any damages that result from your activity.

This lumping has to be because safety goes into activity selection which, as selected, determines back to particular risks for designing countermeasures and quality the same. To allow differentiation is to get into another layer of supervision.

The focus then shifts to the next layer of definition of “understanding risks” as requisite to appropriate selection of activity which is design. The problem with rule-based operations is there is no “understanding” so there is no need for being prepared. To go by rule is to go brain off on ingenuity. Regulations are rules for rule-based behavior. Play by the rules and you will not be punished.

SoCaD activity assurance is understanding the risks related to the activity and accommodating them in activity design to some satisfactory level stop rule (design basis scenarios).

Small problems in rapidly changing circumstances can bring compounding effects.

When we have a disaster the answer is “getting back to the basics,” not how they were left out in the first place. The damage response and not preemption.

Words for Amicus

 

Adamantine – obdurate – pertinacious

Banausic – practical, mechanical

Callipygian – great ass

Cognoscible – knowable

Chimerical – whimsy

Compendious – concise

Complaisant – hypocritically indifferent to duty

Continual – as in control cycle (not continuous)

Corrigible – rectifiable

Daedal – ingenious mechanic

Daunting – disheartening

Demotic – popular vulgar

Doctrinaire – dogmatic rules

duteous – obligation

eclectic – selective, from diverse

ephemeral – short lived, evanescent

exculpatory – blame free

expiable – making amends for sins

farraginous – a hodgepodge

fatidic – prophetic

feckless – without effect

forensic – application of scientific knowledge to issues of law, public

hermeneutic – skill in interpreting

heuristic – serving to discover something

illicit – unlawful

inculpable – guiltless

[augurs were people who read omens – “Augur well” meant good signs.]

inexorable – unyielding to entreaty

inveterate – chronic habitual

irrefragable – incontrovertible

nascent – new born

noetic – intelligent

nugatory – futile

obsequious – OTA

onerous – of a legal obligation

operose – industrious

peccable – liable to sin

peremptory – incontrovertible

perspicacious – discerning

prelapsarian – an innocent period of life

quotidian – ordinary

rabid loyalty

sagacious – shrewd discernment

sedulous – diligent

Sisyphean – unavailing, impossible, endless

Superannuated – obsolete

Synergetic – working together

Temerarious – reckless, heedless

Thaumaturgic – miracles marvels

Trenchant – clear and sharp

Trepid – perilous

Untenable – incapable of defense

Unwitting – unheeding

Unwonted – rare

Vagarious – erratic

Veracious – truthful, veridical

Vincible – conquerable

Vituperative – revile, vilify, berate whistleblower

Vulpine – cunning

Xenophobic – fear of alien loyalty

Zealous loyalty

Judicious selection – appropriate selection

 

 

As detailed below, the legal procedures that are required to be employed to enforce disgorgement judgments are different from those used to enforce penalty judgments. Consequently, collection litigation against a single debtor can become bifurcated into one proceeding to enforce a disgorgement judgment and another proceeding to enforce a penalty judgment.

Collection monitor duties are collateral to already heavy enforcement workloads. While the staff is diligently meeting the collections deadlines, judgment enforcement diverts staff resources from investigating and stopping on-going fraud. Further, the current collections database technology makes it difficult to fully assess program objectives. For example, due to limited technological resources, collections databases in the home, district, and regional offices are not linked to each other.

What the Commission has been unable to do, and is still unable to do, though, is to take penalties paid by defendants who did not tangibly profit from a fraud, or whose profits could not be reasonably approximated by a court, and add them to payments made by those who did for purposes of distribution to defrauded investors. This is a shortcoming in existing law, because there are cases where the addition of penalty money could make a distribution to investors economically feasible.

A majority of cases brought by the Commission are resolved through settlements. Generally, defendants and respondents are permitted to settle with the Commission without admitting or denying the substantive allegations. Therefore, in settled injunctive actions, there are no findings of violations by the court. On the other hand, in settled administrative proceedings, there are Commission findings of violations, even though the settling respondent neither admits nor denies those findings.

The SEC brings actions against branch managers and other supervisors at broker-dealer and investment advisory firms who fail to reasonably supervise their employees who commit violations. The Commission also brings failure to supervise actions against the firms themselves. “Failure to supervise,” however, does not constitute a violation in and of itself of the securities laws.7 These cases are included as part of the study because failure to supervise actions are an important part of the SEC’s enforcement program in that the threat of a failure to supervise action creates incentives for firms to act to prevent illegal activity by their employees before investors are harmed.

 

This portion of the Study focuses on the individuals involved in the financial reporting violations at the issuers. Of the 227 enforcement matters during the period of the Study, the Commission brought a total of 515 actions involving 705 individuals. The Study found that 157 of the 227 enforcement matters involved charges against at least one senior manager. The majority of these senior managers were charged with violating the antifraud provisions of the federal securities laws. The remainder of the charges against senior management were based on aiding and abetting or causing violations of the reporting, books and records and internal control provisions of the federal securities laws.

 

2003

It is essential to see SoCaD as an algorithm because it then can inherit all the properties and histories of algorithms. Every instance of engineering process in history is a story of persecution and abuse, except during brief periods of crisis. Science was OK because it just developed knowledge and parked it in books. Scientists were usually OK  The public even knows the names of some of the great scientists. Public acclaim is given by naming the discovery or advancement – property, equation, material, effect – after the author. We use volts, amps, ohms and watts in everyday activity without an upwelling of hostility against the authors.

When it comes to algorithms, including the engineering process, history records nothing but persecution and punishments. Well aware of the significance of algorithms to preserving society, public policy is selective, event-driven, severely restricted tolerance. It is a badge of loyalty to social norms to treat anything algorithmic as undiscussable. It may now be cool to know the latest engineered artifact to hit the store shelves, but it is socially dangerous to be caught curious as to how it got there.

 

The process of engineering defined: The engineering process is an algorithm for seeking goals. The classic scientific method is mechanized by the algorithm with alternating, sequential tasks of engineering computation and human synthesis. Through strict criteria for when computation ends as requisite for beginning the synthetic tasks, the algorithm assures that the strategic project direction will be toward the objective regardless of tactical outcomes.

The algorithm of engineering process delivers certainty in mission success at the sacrifice of perfection. It is the difference between seeking wealth by entering lotteries and mining coal.

Effective, productive goal-seeking requires appropriate selection of concentrated activity. The scope of appropriate selection includes qualifying targets, identifying constraints, obstacles and stakeholders, designing, validating design basis scenarios, construction and commissioning. The process of engineering is a repeating cycle of cascading task executions and task redesigns that leverages natural law to support synthesis to span the abyss where one suite of rigorous mathematical processing terminates and its successor can commence. The engineering process is a defined, cycling cascade of applied science and ingenuity.

Where the engineered system dynamics can be computed, instinct is suspended. Where the field of ignorance is too large to weld the pieces together with confidence, alternatives to add knowledge are invented. The process treats design choices that don’t pass the proving ground exam the same as any of the other categories of “disturbance” – learn from the collision with reality (virtual and otherwise) and shrink the field of ignorance. Each cycle of the engineering process of trial and intelligent reconfiguration of goal-seeking activity is both imperfect and infallible. Repeat the algorithm and the goal will be obtained – good enough. It is the exchange of perfection, whatever that might be, for certainty of success. Some may get there faster than others, but all practitioners will succeed. When the procedure is followed, competency doesn’t determine whether or not the project will succeed – only when and at what cost.

This is the necessary and sufficient process to maintain the certificate of judgmental immunity.

The central theme is loyalty to a creed. The creed is the benchmark for what is good, what is immaterial, and what is blasphemy. Members of the cult are identified as much by what they spontaneously attack as by what they collectively practice. The corporate creed is composed of rules of action – appropriate selection in rigor mortis. Loyalty to the company way is exhibited by obedience to authority – expressed as a set of rules of action. Conformance to the rules takes over as the operational goal. From that event of displacement on, neither the mission nor the consequences of action are discussable.

The engineering process is characterized by incessant questioning about why one choice over another. The corporate creed begins with “Yours is not to question why, …”

Any attempt to challenge the established rules of action is to be detected and repulsed as blasphemy by any and all members of the sect, without delay. When alien activity is about, it is not necessary to go through the chain of command to get orders for retaliation.  It is expected that the loyal will take the initiative and respond. There is very little in the process of engineering that is not immediately detected by BaU loyalists as blasphemy. The history of treatment for anything using the process is identical. The reaction of corpoman speaks to his assessment of the severity of the threat. Intelligence, SoCaD, engineering design, preemptive whistleblowing, damage avoidance, preventive anything – are all the same. To the corpo creed loyalists it’s a forbidden manifestation within the silo reflecting poorly on their loyalty quotient and a show of brutality to the aliens earns credits to compensate.

Loyalty to a system for selecting task action based upon a fixed set of rules produces whatever consequences emerge from the operational reality context. Results vary with the environs.

Any strategy of the engineer must avoid activating these instincts. There can be no direct push for the engineering process.

 

A most significant exhibit of the transfer of societal influence from supreme Establishment to those practicing the process of engineering was the Internet. There was ample evidence to the Establishment, which had funded the development itself, of the unique properties of the Internet. The Establishment was fully in control and could easily have killed the Internet in 1993. Unconscious as to the threat, the window of opportunity lapsed. The fruits of the engineering process were harvested directly by the public. Now, there is no Establishment on earth that could stop the Internet, including the UN.

There is no organized attempt on the part of engineering institutions to seize power from anyone. Nevertheless, the influence is being transferred in pieces and parts too small to be seen by organizational radar. The overall effect is easy to measure and track but none in the arena has a clue. The new unfiltered link from engineering process to the public is revolutionizing the traditional role of the Establishment in controlling public expectations. The more the engineering process advances, the larger the gap between what BaU does and public expectations. The public thinks why should I have to suffer archaic institutional abuse when engineering process is able to deliver an endless supply of so many wonderful goodies to which I have already become addicted.

 

As judge, you are both Establishment and burdened with the duty to public welfare as Establishment’s agent. Engineering process has placed you on the horns of a dilemma. If you do your society-assigned duty, BaU will suffer. If you side with the Establishment, the public will revolt. The direct hookup of engineering to the public will continuously widen the gap between what is expected and what is delivered. More business as usual with improved damage response cover up is not the answer.

When the breakthrough with natural law was achieved, it was not rescinded because the innovators were shunned. The spontaneous social hostility to the quantum leap did not detract from the significance of its impact. In the quiet warrens and dark dens of engineering, the methods and the tools were slowly knit together to fruition. It was, of course, the process of engineering that eventually but automatically incorporated the advances. The engineer assaulting the complexity has every reason to use the best available technology. He is not constrained by corporate taboo when it is him against the dragon.

The bypass operation is ongoing and as usual institutions are out of synch with the operational reality. There is no mastermind. The vector of the whole is merely the summation of its pieces and parts. The impact is not the goal of some Jabba the Hut. The seismic change is driven by the composite force of many individual impulses.

I cannot give you what you want. What you want is simply impossible and by a large margin. I am quite content with the competency to distinguish that condition. What I can impart is facts, understanding, knowledge and wisdom regarding what is achievable. My value added to you is exact guidance about what is possible, what is the pursuit of the impossible, and the objective criteria for distinguishing which is which.

The violent retaliation to preemption whistleblowers and the hostility to the engineering process are one and the same thing. Loyalty is in the genes. It is clearly blasphemy of the creed. You cannot be loyal and take this quietly.

We gots to stop naming things that trigger this instinct. No blasphemy. No avoidance. Response yes. It has to be in-silo to be neutral and objective. It is no advantage to trigger this instinct. We can get there anyway otherwise.

Probability of litigation = frequency X severity X public perception of duty

 

If it fails at the work face, nothing removed can make any difference. Workface delta.

Preventive law – history is a perfect fit. The Finns got there first. Ratio in law exceeds 10,000 to 1. It’s a good ratio for preemption-damage response.

Force only works on rules-based. If positive incentives, future based is needed, force is counterproductive. The incentive must be automatic from the achievement and that comes from a process for achievement. Rules is not for achievement but for compliance. Compliance means force and force at the work face means progress is no longer the goal. You can have progress or compliance, but not both.

Compliance goes on in the face of disconfirming evidence. Damage responders only. Hierarchy preserved.

When DoJ lawyers have reason to, they have little problem seeing through sham compliance programs. None are based on results, only obedience to rules.

Incentives is a force multiplier, not a work-multiplier. Force resistance takes effort so that more force takes more work for less results. The regulated are already telling you that your rules will fail to get the job done.

The “new” gig is to explain some of the behaviors encountered in terms of persecution of the engineering process as creed-based, rather than rules-based production work. “That choice is being made, not in the name of production, but to keep the process of engineering out of the affair.” POSIWID

As an individual, you are unwise to go against the flow of creed-based loyalty. You can never win. Your plan of approach has to, at all costs, avoid the emotional triggers of loyalty to a different creed. You can only point out creed differences sometime after getting the loyalty issue fully resolved. You swoon over their loyalty so that it is not open to question. Then you can submit that your loyalty is of equal quality but it is legally bound to a different creed. You ask them to accept your loyalty as made from the same stuff as theirs. To survive, our society has arranged for a variety of creeds and some are mutually exclusive to others. This has nothing to do with the quality of loyalty to the same society. These creed differences are manifest in and husbanded in law. Some members of society will be punished through law for selecting the same activities legally required of other members. Depending on your assigned role in society, you can be punished for engaging in or failing to engage in the same activity.

The key is to check where a specific affair is relative to the regulatory inflection point, praising loyalty to the system profusely. Then, you measure the delta between the activities of the preemption SoCaD and what they have. When over regulating and under-preempting, the strategy is to warn. You cannot participate in rules roulette or incentives or supervision because it would legitimize the imbalance. You can itemize the reported comments on the rules but you cannot comment also.

The strategy is to discourage the illusion that another tweak of the rules or incentives might just do it. Show that no matter what they do for rules compliance, the $540 exposure is total. When preemption is neglected, it would be malpractice to fuss over rules. Your duty is precisely for this menace to society – to detect this bias and to warn. You can’t fail the primary duty assigned to your profession.

It doesn’t count in court to say “They should have listened to me” after the damage is done. The law has provided definite milestones for responsibility transfer for the professional once detection of probable and avoidable damage has been made. Lawyers make little effort to publish these requirements and appropriately warn the professionals.

There is no half-way engineering process. It comes as a unit, context and all. This is why it is so easy to find status. When creed comes over mission, boom.

Frequency of violation X severity of resultant damage X stakeholder perception of negligence = litigation expense. Since there is rarely warning of PLs when damage has occurred, stakeholders have to initiate allegations.

When corpoman is choosing activity by BaU loyalty, he does not want the mirror of appropriate selection in the room.

By praising loyalty to BaU and slowly making aware of the arguments against the system they serve, you at least enable a chance the targets will further support your case for the SoCaD. They need to see the danger in BaU and the absence of SoCaD – which is the tort exposure. You give them a rational case for defending themselves against management! “You force a system that can’t work and endanger the corpo by prohibiting a system that does! You get to be a friend of the workers because you help them directly deal with the stress – defense and offense. Then, if they don’t use the arguments on management they can’t blame you. The sergeants will love you, the generals will hate you. You can offer defense and offense hope to any of the troops that open up with detailed complaints after you praise their loyalty. You can give a card with the regulatory amicus. If they then ask, via email, you will then provide the SoCaD amicus.

 

Judge: look at that jury. Ten years ago not one would know what the Internet was. No self-respecting manager would be caught dead using a computer. Now, half of the jurors over 70 are doing email with their families. You are an eye witness to the results from the engineering process bypassing the Establishment filters. When one juror tells the others that he could have foreseen the damage using computer software he has used, the other jurors will believe him.

Persecution and ridicule of engineering practitioners was the first discrimination-free sport of society. It’s not who you are but what you do that matters.

 

When it is finally decided damage prevention is best, who’s going to make it happen – a fucking manager? In BaU, management can always get BaU by force. Damage preemption can only be achieved through the engineering process executed by free individuals. Because so much ingenuity is involved, the use of force stops any real progress in its tracks.

It’s not the individual. It’s the blasphemy. Salmon Rushdie stuff. Flag-waving creed loyalty. Double-standard. Retroactive duty. Release turnover. The pattern summarizes the familiar observations.

The very idea of allowing or tolerating blasphemy drives loyal corpoman crazy. He shows his loyalty by intolerance. Corpoman can’t stand at the loyalty crossroads either. Too challenging to BaU preservation.

Social punishment to engineering practitioners is an issue separate from the astonishing advances that have been achieved in the process of engineering, particularly in damage avoidance. Creed-driven rejection of engineering practice prejudices the mission of damage avoidance.

Practitioner ethics is unrelated to the damage avoidance mission. Personal characteristics of the practitioners don’t correlate to performance after the decision to execute the algorithm to preempt damage is made. Faithful execution of the engineering algorithm automatically bypasses ethical factors. Ethics is assessed from effects and causes precede effects. Your services and products, not your ethics quotient, settles the ethics matter. Saint or sinner, preempting damage is an ethics-free process. The law knows the skinny on ethics.

Preemption yields to the engineering process. The theory of reality drives the engineering process. The physical world is composed of matter, energy and information. Shannon’s entropy of a message is the number of bits to encode it. It is equivalent to the entropy formula of the 2nd law. Damage avoidance requires deep idiosyncratic knowledge (Ashby’s Law).

A degree of freedom is any quantity that can vary and each degree of freedom contributes to entropy. Information exchange among physical processes follows the laws of nature.

The double standard: If you were to interfere with the work of the Dr., lawyer  or CPA, the law would be outraged. PEs are obstructed in their duty by society as ordinary conduct. (lawyers hold safety data)

From the outset, it made practical sense to engineers to specify their own duty as functionally complete. The engineering process, a repeating algorithm of sequential task actions, does not segment well. The duty scope is congruent with the inherent attributes of the process. Whatever it’s called, the engineering process is an all or nothing proposition. There is no middle position. Non-conformance to the requisites of the process of engineering simply does not work – and failure is apparent from the outset. Faithfulness to the engineering process yields a steady stream of affirming reductions to the field of ignorance. Competency with the engineering process is its own reward. Progress towards the goal is obvious. Issues of ethics and legal due diligence never emerge.

Recognizing the power and plasticity of the engineering process, the conditions of license contain no proviso, no caveats, and no disclaimers should the client provide false information. No excuses are accepted. PEs have no problem with this all-encompassing obligation because due diligence with the engineering process produces the same thing. To the PE, his only possible defense is the same process he must use in any case to attain the desired outcome. The law adds no burden of responsibility that is not inherent in his engineering services.

The law provides for a station where the transfer of outcome responsibility can properly take place. When the engineer has appropriately detected, warned and followed through to alert the designated authorities, he has fully discharged his professional duty. This transfer station is the same one specified by the SEC, in response to the Sarbannes-Oxley bill of 2002, for attorneys bearing news of corporate malfeasance “up the ladder.” It is entirely satisfactory.

When tough problems get solved, it is always a result of application of the same engineering process, however inept, conscious or not. The reason that everyone is instinctively aware of the engineering process is that they use it in the course of solving the daily problems of survival. When the individual is driven by the demands of loyalty (to the company way) in one direction and he knows the solution lies in the other, he is in trapped in cognitive dissonance. The distinctive pattern of behavior can be observed all around you. To stand at the crossroads of obedience to authority and the engineering process takes more strength than anyone, including Dilbert, can possess.

It should be pointed out that when the engineering process breakthrough came during the 1950s, engineers were quick to apply the technology to investigate the behavior of social systems. Knowing that natural law did not discriminate between systems of metal and systems of flesh, the influence of the laws of systems and dynamics were studied on the complete spectrum of social affairs. As computers became more powerful, it made the investigation of more complex organizational arrangements practical and convenient. The knowledge developed about social system behavior using the engineering process and computer-supported dynamic simulations, has proven to be an infallible benchmark for the purpose of assessing the prospects of project success. The behavioral patterns associated with rule-based operations are so distinctive compared to those attending the engineering process, classification error is impossible. One operational system cannot masquerade around as the other. This capability, now routine, is a basic tool for early detection of project failures, as specified in the standard of care. Social behavior rapidly adapts to the value system by which activity is to be selected.

This mess is a derivative of loyalty ownership, not ethical choices. The freedom to choose ended when the deed to your loyalty was obtained and you were shackled to the creed.

The Establishment always treated engineering as a necessary evil to deal with dragons – but foremost as a threat.

Engineering is so individual and so flat.

BaU is so herd and so hierarchical

The sole purpose of a hierarchy exceeding two total levels is to concentrate wealth and power for application to the goals of the ruling tier.

All the trouble corpo went through to quarantine engineers to their burrows has gone down the tubes since the breakthrough and surge in capability. No longer depending on big dollars to practice the discipline, engineers can make it on their own direct with the public. An example of the loss of Establishment dominion, because of size and response cycle time, of engineering was the Internet. Created headless by a small group of individuals under government supervision, it slipped right past the guards and addicted the public to freedom.

 

Any insertion of ethics is a positive red flag signaling positive for BaU and rules for action. The link of ethics serves as both caveat and cover up. (ABA backbone) It is so ironic that no institution dedicated to homogenizing its workforce to rules of action would be fussing about ethics.

Resilience is the keyword for BaU

Plasticity is SoCaD

Retroactively applied duty standard, triggered by damage. Only the PE, given the duty to detect damage potentials, has a pre-damage obligation to the stakeholders. The duty realm for other professionals only begins after some need has arisen or injury has occurred. Diligence in duty is determined for other professionals by how the actions taken align with responding to the need or injury already occurred and brought outside-in to their attention. The judge has the problem with setting the SoCaD in conflict with natural law. After it does damage, it is open to question.

Doctors, lawyers and CPAs have no duty to detect impending damage to potential clients. No duty is there until after a potential client initiates contact and he makes that move only after some need is manifest.  If a patient comes to the oncologist already plagued with lung cancer, the doctor is not held responsible for retroactive failure to warn the man ten years previously to stop smoking.

Only for the PE is there an endless duty to stakeholders he will never meet to preempt damage that will never occur. To meet this duty, the PE must make himself familiar with stakeholder interests at the outset. When the PE has exercised due diligence, the stakeholders will have no interest in the designer or his work.

It’s challenge enough to have DEW duty. In practice, the suite of actions intrinsically associated with that duty, the process of engineering, is socially abhorred. The ordinary citizen loyal to the company way is instinctively hostile to the engineering process. The duty of damage avoidance is held in contempt by business as usual as alien and threatening to the established order. Those loyal to the company will affirm their loyalty by taking all appropriate measures to detect and reject enemies of the status quo.

So basically we are given the duty to preempt damage to a society fanatically hostile to the process of engineering – requisite to exhibit due diligence. We notice that all the damage responders are handsomely rewarded while the whistleblowers are hanged in public. Rudy Gulianni is honored as a hero in damage response, while the prophets of 9/11 attempting damage avoidance are banished to obscurity.

PEs are well aware of the loyalty conflict with the stakeholders. Due diligence requires going against the grain.

We notice that clients of the other professions, going with the grain of society towards damage response, cooperate with and support the efforts of their professionals. When damage response efforts are deemed successful, client approval reinforces the devotion of the professional to his work.

Why would anyone be a PE? Engineers get to influence the future civilization itself. Through designing the engineered artifacts peppered throughout society, we get to bump civilization along in a direction of our choosing whether the Establishment approves or not. No civilization on earth was ever advanced by its professional damage responders. Making whole and restoring service does not address causes. Focus your talented members exclusively on damage response matters and convention will be preserved a bit longer. The better the damage response teams, the more resilience for BaU. As long as we can afford the damage cause by business as usual, it can be preserved.

What happens when the production of damage exceeds the supply of resources? We already know the choice of the BaU loyalists because this inflection point has already been crossed. Bankruptcy. The institutions intentionally commit suicide. If there ever was a call for the duty to warn the public of catastrophe, this is it.

 

The only pal for the PE is where the bias is minimal or reversed. Remember the public you are legally bound to serve is the one who set up the suicide mission. Don’t attempt to change the instinct. Rather, count on it to continue as an income source. If you are willing to remain in public quarantine regardless of what good you do, wealth can take the place of public appreciation.

The public is agitated by its need for the engineering process. It doesn’t like having to resort to its help and they chase it back to its burrow the minute the crisis is over. They can’t even think about readjusting its reward system to reflect the balance of current  needs. Even the wife hesitates to tell anyone else when her engineer husband solves a particularly challenging problem with the house. You really can’t be seen in public encouraging them.

Refuse to buck this prejudice. Lay the facts at the doorstep, warn, and announce that you have legally transferred the outcome responsibility to them and withdraw. They have to be left naked with the ball and doubts – at least suspecting that their choice might come back to haunt them. From one chip you can make more chips.

History of intentional abuse set to a new level by liability insurance. They set us up as fall guy and kept us too poor to benefit them from pulling the trigger. Must factor in basic schizo. Put it to advantage. Set the conditions for saving their ass up front. When they make a conscious choice to stay with BaU, take your chip and make more chips by telling the stakeholders in level after level.

Yes there are grand frameworks and mathematics to aid gathering information and form the essential knowledge with efficiency and productivity. To any engineer socially empowered to freely practice his trade, it would be unthinkable to not solicit and use them. The power of the process of engineering resides is in the fact that neither the degree of perfection in knowledge nor the genius in creating alternatives for trial are essential to the eventual outcome. Be faithful to the recursive strategy of navigation and you will reach the destination. It is not the course you chose at the outset that matters to a successful journey, but your continuing means of navigation.

It is now apparent that the whole barrier has been the loyalty and social repulsion problems. The schizophrenia with engineering as negatively rewarded – you display herd loyalty by jeering the engineers – yet there is no other way to deal with complexity.

The Establishment problem is increasing complexity. If it could grab a chunk of humanity and set up shop in total isolation, complexity would spontaneously decay back to levels where its traditions would work as well to preserve society as they did in the Stone Age.

It is so easy to run another communication line. Dealing with the complexity it brings is a different story. Nations have done it. The webwork has their options mired. They can’t do anything without impacting someone else. When a problem is recognized, they bring out BaU instead of SoCaD to deal with it. Don’t expect a system based on BaU hierarchy to tackle its problems with the engineering process.

The mismatch is methodology. BaU makes the mess and tries to fix things with more BaU. You show the aversion by recording the huge hostility to the idea of SoCaD implant. This mismatch is going on at many nested levels. The place to win this war is up front is the criteria for dominant form. The orderly transfer of power – set by objective measures. You have to stop the attacks. Ghostbusters example with the mayor.

If BaU doesn’t officially transfer power to SoCaD by its own choice, you don’t push any. You set it up so you get a chip to redeem later when their choice makes do do.

That is why we are legally bound to solve the problem only when we are free to use the engineering process to do so. We are responsible to success only when SoCaD is dominant. We lose our duty to reach the goal when BaU is dominant. The warn is our goal responsibility transfer clause. The law is the only place that accepts this. Society at large wants BaU to be used exclusively for everything. This is why we embrace the law. To escape the tyranny of means-ends. Management ties BaU means to ends (complexity) with punishments. When we accept this suicide mission, we help perpetuate the damage. The mere attempt to force the tie on subordinates declares at once that the problem is far above the complexity comfort limit and that loyalty to BaU is stronger than the will to solve the problem. This is how the PE can detect very early of impending disaster – which is why it is in the SoCaD.

Since the way to find a mismatch DEW is the benchmark of engineering process, it makes great sense that society stuck PEs with the sentinel duty. Who else is custodian of the engineering process? Others may practice it in their own vocabulary but the duty to push the state of the art in process is assigned to engineering as a condition of license.

The enabling power is that the SOA is pushed along by individual practitioners too tiny to be caught by Establishment’s radar. Society has persecuted engineers so relentlessly, engineers adopted a defensive strategy and acclimated to working in burrows – where they innovate quietly and privately for direct transfer to a public eager to receive them. By the time BaU finds out about the next technology advance from commercial success of another direct shot from engineering to public, ala Griffith X-Ray, it’s too late for lethargic Establishment response-oriented controls to stop it.  The power to filter the engineering input to society has been lost. Losing the gatekeeper role is very much worse than the Establishment can possibly imagine. When the first engineer became empowered, they all were. Consider engineers as terrorists to your way of life, if you must, but keep full liability coverage. Which only goes to show that BaU accepts no duty to preserve society – only itself.

It not that society doesn’t want its problems solved, they forbid any of their own to use the process of engineering to do it. They give it over to the academics for safe keeping.

We have to stop feeding this game and figure out how to profit from their choice to preserve BaU and worsen the crisis. Don’t criticize society for punishing engineers. No emotion. That is futile to effect change. Stick them, using legal process, with your former responsibility for the mess. The only way to exhibit socio-technical intelligence is to do so. Let legal process make you rich. It is the only process you can trust to keep the people straight. Even if he is not, make like the judge is the only peer dude outside of engineering who is objective and balanced for public interest – but with limited duty to detect.

If they don’t have the same public duty, they will be client-biased and therefore oriented to damage response, the hallmark of BaU. Loyalty to BaU means hostility to SoCaD.

Whoa! You give us this global duty with no excuses and then hamper every effort towards diligence?

A double standard – law has obstruction of justice for itself but refuses obstruction of diligence to other professions.

 

Legally compliant

The gov’t insurance regulators fail to warn the related parties about failing insurance companies until they collapse. Cute.

Any strategy for selecting task action is a rapidly cycling local experiment investigating the performance of specific goal-seeking choices encountering the operational reality. Natural law directs that strategies where the rules of action are held constant oblivious to experimental results will displace the original goal with business as usual. Control of activity outcome is abdicated to the whims of context.

Through long exposure to the public’s experiments, the laws of society have become aligned with the immutable laws of nature. In those experiments where the contract fixes the ends to be achieved, the law does not support a fixed specification of means to attain them. When the contract specifies task actions to be taken, the outcomes become the sole risk and property of the buyer. The legal obligations among its citizens can be expressed either in terms of services to be performed or results to be obtained.  Neither nature nor the law will support a contract that requires specified ends to be achieved with specified means. The legal system of society does not demand what nature forbids.

 

Once you have completely sunk your selection of activity into the mud of natural law, decide that you’re going to like it there. When you have acclimated to the inherent constraints of the mud, pig-like, you can wrestle with anybody and never lose. The same mud that once mired you down now works to your advantage. Your opponents will, sooner or later, realize that you’re enjoying the tussle too much and give up.

Yes there are grand frameworks and mathematics to aid gathering information and form the essential knowledge with efficiency and productivity. To any engineer socially empowered to freely practice his trade, it would be unthinkable to not solicit and use them. The power of the process of engineering resides in the fact that neither the degree of perfection in knowledge nor the genius in creating alternatives for trial are essential to the eventual successful outcome. Be faithful to the strategy of navigation and you will reach the destination. It is not the course you chose at the outset that matters to a successful journey, but your means of resetting the course as you go.

It is now apparent that the whole barrier has been the loyalty and social repulsion problems. The schizophrenia with engineering as negatively rewarded – you display herd loyalty by jeering the engineers – yet there is no other way to deal with complexity.

The way the PE detects failure so early is to see that SoCaD is not being used and the need is there. Once outcome control has been abdicated to context, the PE has no excuse for failing to detect.

Process is destiny.

The law permits the PE no excuse. The PE is malpractice liable for even attempting to transfer liability to others. The strict no-excuses duty to avoid stakeholder damage is concentrated on the engineer for good, objective reasons. As the engineering process is the source so also is it the salvation. You don’t give novel problems to a programmed robot.

It is a simple matter for any PL to find the PE negligent in one or more aspects of his duty chain from detection to warning to the applied remedies of avoidance engineering. The law, beautifully designed by the process of engineering, automatically sets the great advances in the capability of damage preemption as the benchmark of professional duty to the public. Since technological progress has made avoiding stakeholder damage practical and reliable, on what public-benefit basis would the law permit professionals a lesser standard of care?

Because the capability exists and it generally available, the issue is not whether or not the law will be enforced, but when and by what pathway will it be effected. Because the public is aware and of limited patience, if conformance and enforcement does not flow from the Establishment down as it used to, it will be done by other means. The suddenness of passage of the 2002 SarbOx bill is but one manifestation of the pressure of public interest.

As easy as it is for PL to show tortious negligence in any instance of stakeholder damage, it was as easy for the PE to have foreseen and avoided it. It is two sides of the same coin.

The Establishment problem is increasing complexity driven by technology produced through the process of engineering. If it could grab a chunk of humanity and set up shop in total isolation, complexity would spontaneously decay back to levels where its traditions would work as well to preserve society as they did in the Stone Age.

It is so easy to run another communication line. Dealing with the complexity it brings is a different story. Nations have done it. The webwork has their options mired. They can’t do anything without impacting someone else. When a problem is recognized, they bring out BaU instead of SoCaD to deal with it. Don’t expect a system based on BaU hierarchy to tackle its problems with the engineering process.

The mismatch is methodology. BaU makes the mess and tries to fix things with more BaU. You show the aversion by recording the huge hostility to the idea of SoCaD implant. This mismatch is going on at many nested levels. The place to win this war is up front is the criteria for dominant form. The orderly transfer of power – set by objective measures. You have to stop the attacks. Ghostbusters example with the mayor.

If BaU doesn’t officially transfer power to SoCaD by its own choice, you don’t push any. You set it up so you get a chip to redeem later when their choice makes do do.

That is why we are legally bound to solve the problem only when we are free to use the engineering process to do so. We are responsible to success only when SoCaD is dominant. We lose our duty to reach the goal when BaU is dominant. The warn is our goal responsibility transfer clause. The law is the only place that accepts this. Society at large wants BaU to be used exclusively for everything. Socially you can’t power up on preemption SoCaD.  This is why we embrace the law. To escape the tyranny of means-ends. Management ties BaU means to ends (complexity) with punishments. When we accept this suicide mission, we help perpetuate the damage, against our oath. The mere attempt to force the tie on subordinates declares at once that the problem is far above the complexity comfort limit and that loyalty to BaU is stronger than the will to solve the problem. This is how the PE can detect very early of impending disaster – which is why it is in the SoCaD.

Since the way to find a mismatch DEW is the benchmark of engineering process, it makes great sense that society stuck PEs with the sentinel duty. Who else is custodian of the engineering process? Others may practice it in their own vocabulary but the duty to push the state of the art in process is assigned to engineering as a condition of license.

Empirically confirmed theories

Loyal dudes doing the compliance rules of action, as ordered. The limits of rule-based action choice. Preemption exposure is huge – independently validate by PL [offer as a business?] Your duty to warn that legal definition of damage avoidance not being done. The liability exposure is theirs. Their choice. They are not to proceed thinking regulatory compliance takes care of tortious negligence exposure.

 

Natural law has no respect for history; it has no goals; it does not foresee.

Informavore

BaU is a state of mind, a belief environment that hasn’t occurred to them to be in. Loyalty is the product of innate proclivities they do not need to understand to benefit from. Institution as benevolent dictator ruling from headquarters.

Our product, not their source

The loyalty intersection – none can stand

Causes must precede effects

Audit SoCaD for pathway, resources, rewards

There is no oval office of damage avoidance.

Synecdoche   buzzword that stands in for the whole

What they are is very much a matter of which culture possesses their loyalty

No rules of action can substitute for preempting damage.

The cost of robotically doing the same thing is running the risk of stakeholder damage.

The issue of foreseeability calls for an engineering answer

BaU – SoCaD in corpo silo is schizophrenia  (engineering design is controlled and quarantined)

You cannot be drawn in to a loyalty realm sans avoidance. When there is no avoidance, working on damage response is contributing to the damage. Fanatic loyalty for BaU

Attack engineering is a meme.

The corporation is a human game preserve for playing BaU

Superannuated cultural artifact – engineering hostile.

Engineering process is an intolerable threat to the BaU loyalty silo. Requisite engineering work is quarantined.

Fanaticism for BaU is the loyalty display norm concomitant with detect and eject alien activity.

Like a specie that must temper and evolve when the environment changes. BaU

Loyalty is fundamentally an act of faith

The engineering process proceeds to the goal because the plastic execution recipe treats disturbances, scope creep, developments, errors and performance disappointments as all the same impulse to adjust activity. The new aggregate of inputs is used, with reinforcement learning by trial, to pull another task action plan out of your ass (the only possible source) aimed at error reduction and you execute.

 

When the rules of action are to be taken as infallible , they cannot also be intelligent.

Recipe reader

Operating by rules imposes a master synchrony that requires delay

From shifting conditions and disturbances you extract anticipation to stay one step ahead.

In BaU the design space is confined to the loyalty silo. You can’t stand at the intersection of loyalty regimes.

Preemption is an algorithmic process – substrate neutrality; foolproof (stupendous reliability); each step is structured and stop-ruled. Follow the local algorithm. Conserve what is goal-seeking valuable, jettison the weakness, and extrude another “take” for execution.

If BaU is king, preemption will be absent. No pathway, no reward, no resources. Don’t ignite the hostility against the engineering process.

Engineering design is a cascade of algorithmic processes feeding on trials of imperfect synthesis.

For it to be admitted by unprejudiced minds of sufficient grasp, you just have to point the theory out.

“Don’t blame me, I just work here”

There are several levels of operational understanding of engineered artifacts. The operator can learn to manipulate by knowing what is designed to happen. The maintainer knows a great deal more, especially about the proper functioning of interior parts and in combination. The designer had to descend to the underlying physics of the process.

The public rightfully expects engineered artifacts available for use to be a product of a process of reasoned design development – a series of choices among alternatives in which the decisions reached were those deemed best by the designer.  This expectation coincides with the process of engineering.

A blah blah is dingbat’s way of making another dingbat. An engineer is a system’s way

Where is your SoCaD and supply names of recent practitioners.

NASA loyalty went to BaU with contempt for and overrule dominion over engineering – plenty lost.

Breathtaking catalytic virtuosity

Alan Turing: There are several theorems saying that when the regulations of rules for action are presented as infallible, they cannot also be intelligent. There is no limit to intelligence with an engineering process that makes no pretense at infallibility.

No remotely compelling system of ethics has ever been made computationally tractable.

 

Nicholas Metropolis 1992

“Since World War II the discoveries that have changed the world over were not made in the lofty halls of theoretical physics but in the labs of engineering and experimental science. The roles of pure science and engineering have been reversed; they are no longer what they were in the golden age of physics with Einstein, Schrodinger, and Fermi. Historians of science have continued the tradition of ignoring the great innovations in engineering and computer technology; where real scientific progress is nowadays to be found. The process of engineering has changed and continues to change the face of the world more thoroughly and more drastically than did any of the great discoveries in theoretical physics.”

The engineering process is the obligatory organizer of all complexity and the source of innovation’s power. The public marvels at the cunning interplay of parts, the elegant strategies and exquisite workmanship of the Artificer.

Dennett

“The engineering process has always had second class status in society. From Leonardo da Vinci to Charles Babbage to Thomas Edison, the engineering genius has been acclaimed but nevertheless regarded with a certain measure of condescension by the mandarin elite of society. The fossil traces of this negative attitude towards engineering process are everywhere in our culture. Society honors its philosophers of physics, philosophers of biology, philosophers of mathematics, and philosophers of social science. The Establishment does not allow the recognition of a philosopher of engineering – as if there couldn’t possibly be enough conceptual material of interest in engineering for a philosopher to specialize in. The heritage of negative attitudes towards engineering is aggressively perpetuated in society. The plain fact is that engineering harbors some of the deepest, most beautiful, most important thinking ever done.”

What is the hankering after magic but a fond wish that a miracle will somehow come along to save the expedition. The paranoia that an engineering perspective will spread from success to organization and flatten the hierarchy is manifest with every successful enterprise.

We PEs have chosen to be midwife for the process of engineering that has a life of its own, precisely because, in contrast to BaU, the subtle demon does grow and change. Blaspheme the corpo creed.

The power of the process of engineering is incessantly validated when the considerable efforts of society to quarantine, devalue and punish application of the methodology result in advancing its scope.

With our capacity to assault more and varied complexities advanced by computational horsepower, no sooner do more powerful computers become available than engineers discover with their help that more complex issues can be resolved. Uncertainty reduction reveals a breathtaking cascade of nested levels with new principles of explanation, new phenomena appearing at every level, revealing that still more levels exist with a set of highly organized tricks.

Piet Hein

The road to wisdom?

Well, it’s plain and simple to express:

Err and err and err again

But less and less and less.

Terminate sterile explorations in timely fashion. Divergences driven by the 2nd law that emerge over time.

Engineering process is the gradual lifter in Design Space.

 

In theory-building, everyone starts in the middle. The first concepts are middle-sized and our introduction to them comes midway in the nested dolls.

Time’s arrow given by entropy is the loss of organization. Sustained viability is a systematic imposition of structure to locally reverse entropy.

Each new engineered artifact must have a large design investment in its etiology somewhere, so the requisite amount of innovation is manageable.

The engineering process (evolution) is cleverer than you are. The cycling of trials of innovations mixed with proven winners will evolve better designs than you can imagine at the origin.

The Baldwin Effect – Cultural conditioning bred humans with an innate capacity for loyalty to a culture and a concomitant zeal for detecting and punishing disloyal activity.

There is no process to build our ethical knowledge as there is for engineering knowledge.

The stalemate is on. Corpoworld is telling the regulators that the new reporting is adding expense for zero gain on incentives. Everyone knows the round of changes will fail, like all the others. Why add futile effort? The problem both sides have is that, without insurance, the damage that escapes the regulatory net will hit a public in no mood to absorb it. They bought some time but they couldn’t turn off the prime mover. The raw greed is exposed as never before. Effective cover up is taking up more resources than anyone or any bureaucracy can muster. The same technology used to track citizens of the empire works the other way just as well.

 

Regulators fail to act against well-known frauds. Spitzer

Now that we know the class of Enron was able, for years, to fraud the public from over 6 trillion dollars without detection by the same regulatory network in place, the question is just how big does a scandal have to be before the webwork of regulators and professional watchdogs hired by the public would sound the alarm?

The world is more interconnected than anyone can imagine. If it isn’t understood it can’t be managed.

Corpoworld has a hard-wired nervous system – efficient and productive for stereotypic environments.

Plasticity of action is requisite to make learning possible. Functional plasticity enables anticipation and trend adjustments. The public does not have to understand the engineering process to benefit from it.

Corporations, scheduled by pandemonium-driven contention, are on a perpetual vendetta against the process of engineering. As a hard-wired visceral response, engineering process is labeled alien, suspicious and something to be rejected.

Axioms:

  • Never attempt to market external to loyalty silo. No benefits, no negative reductions. Mind futility.
  • Never pursue a plan that requires the dude to act outside of his rules for action.
  • Plan for an acceptance of hostility to engineering process.

Warn potential whistleblowers to avoid this. Set criteria for “good to do” whistleblowing. How to whistleblow without loyalty problem? When it is a SoCaD workface. When it is after damage and highly rewarded by legal process.

 

By the time the need to preemptive whistleblow is recognized, away from the work face, it is already too late to be effective. Too much reptile brain hostility. Abandon trying to establish a warning pathway a method of safeguarding the whistleblower. It can’t be worth the trouble. The fix must come much earlier in time, far more subtle, and intimately close to the work face. Add whistleblowing to the regulatory discredit list. It’s a waste of good citizens. Scrap the whole game, as in regulatory.

When someone discovers stakeholder damage, away from the workface, it is already too late to whistleblow. The rock is that in corpoworld the process of engineering is despised as a loyalty display. Showing contempt for engineering is part of institutional life. Now we know why. To push for preemption is to excite the same hostility we avoided by commending their loyalty to rules. The two faces of loyalty – positive displays of fealty to the rules and negative aggression to alien practices.

  • Do sell regulation by supervision as limited and $1 compliance
  • Do not sell preemption. Refer to website as your legal standard.
  • Do not offer to provide PCDC workshop. Stop at attesting as an attendee for annual license duty. You can suggest attending to see what it would take to be in compliance with SoCaD, as do you, only if they are interested in the $540. If they are not interested in $540 compliance, that’s fine by you. Having to confront this choice is your goal. How they respond tells you everything.

You must avoid suspicion of pushing your agenda. Your power is neutrality and an equal loyalist. You must stay clean. Let them bitch at the websites. When they refuse workshop you have earned a chip, which you may be able to redeem for cash after damage occurs. When they deny SoCaD, don’t tell them the consequences to them unless they ask. You have basically made the case for PL and, since he is on contingency, he will not reject your offer.

 

Instead preach work face participating critics. The engineering process is whistleblowing on the go at the work face of goal seeking activity. Not compliance-seeking activity. The warning about damage avoidance liability must come when you have enough facts to show its absence. When they formally refuse, the issue is closed and you have your chip. This scene must happen without triggering reptile brain antagonism. If you do, the relationship goes mutually toxic.

Take the SoCaD test (website) self-administered, to check on your liability exposure. We need a self-test, lawyer certified, to make this critical point subtle. Learn how to stay apart from the reptile brain trigger limit. If they can pass the test, there will be all kinds of evidence.

No efforts to alter the regulatory process or to directly advocate SoCaD can be made. One is futile and the other starts a war. Efforts must go to make the chip as solid as possible and then, how to redeem it best. Step one is to form the chip, based on legal grounds. Step two is chip redemption, using legal process. The law shapes how we cook the chip and the law impels how we redeem it. First the chip, without any pressure. Then we market the chip.

Show in amicus how any PL could sue the regulatory agency for SoCaD violation. The standards of rules of action displaces preemption as goal – and they know this. Compliance to rules of action – in lieu of goal compliance, the process of engineering. Plant the seed of stakeholder suing regulator in amicus. The focus must shift to goal-seeking compliance, not rules compliance. The regulatory act of desperation to aid whistleblowing, a huge loser, is a sign it recognizes its own failure to incentivize.

What is the point of incentives to do a process that can’t work? The incentives are to comply with a methodology proven to fail. The CEO says I can’t control the outside-in disturbances with rule based behavior; how in the hell is more rules of action going to help me with what I really dread. I want to stop whatever it is that is defeating BaU beyond my control.

Their efforts to change the law to solve their dread are doomed. The laws do nothing to stem the source of their dread which is engineering process direct to public outside of their control. Keynote on engineering process.

[franchise this method for business consultants?] Focus on damage response. Obstruction of SoCaD, negative benefit to effort  is worse than wasted efforts

Self-test on website

The job is to point out that under present ongoing practices, there will be no viable defense against allegations of tortious negligence – should stakeholder damage subsequently occur. The legal, enforceable definition of the standard of care for stakeholder damage avoidance is conspicuous by its absence. (this is what it is, website, and I haven’t found it) Since your risk management budget allocations are not going to preemption, they are going to damage response, regulatory servicing, and façade.

Rather than the Establishment controlling the engineering process and filtering what gets through to the public. Engineering is now in direct, transparent communication with the public and the power of engineering process is now coming down on corpoland from the marketplace.

This amicus before injury is what preemption is all about. Amicus about punishing preemption is usually provided after those diligent in their duty to avoid damage have been fired.

This amicus is provided before injury for the express purpose of avoiding it. It would be inappropriate for an amicus about the duty to warn of preventable calamity would be proffered after the damage has been incurred. Consider the mixed feelings you have about receiving warnings of impending damage and you will appreciate the PE’s plight. “If only they had heeded my warnings!”

Corpo does not have a preemption duty and victimizes those caught doing it. No duty to detect or transmit. Event response only. Damage preemption is not organizationally neutral.

Under law, yesterday was the deadline for all avoidance.

“It’s costing too much to input your regulation system for compliance supervision which is still failing the goal anyway.”

“I know what you should be doing.”

Don’t mind the work; do mind futility. How’s about a fountain of smart?

If your malpractice insurance is cheap, your legal duty will not be enforced. If you attempt to do your duty, there will be no legal backing. By convention, legal action follows damage. Stick around, it gets worse.

It is as bad as you think and they are out to get you.

Show that since preemption activities don’t exist, they are exposed to tortious negligence. The particulars of what they are doing don’t matter. Now when they choose no action, you have a DI chip.

You don’t go up the ladder because it is the same hostility! Up the ladder is reporting to perpetrators disguised as responsible leaders. That is the betrayal. The pyramid higher is indistinguishable from the lower. The resentment of getting the buck and the hopeless mission is severe.

The big secret of RBF is that at each recycle you keep the stuff that worked. If the cycles are short and open to learning from the experience and the changing context, less and less of the next experimental run is a gamble on creativity. Like tort, you keep abreast of entropy as you go.

The USSG calls for discipline for the failure to detect wrongdoing #6. After the fact again. Damage response. The issues to prevent are defined by damage experience. It is a regulation to comply with government regulations – same sin. Infinite supervisory layers “with sufficient checks and balances to ensure compliance.” To what? rules of action. COE The big killer is entropy time. Regulation to rules of action has no way to reduce entropy. All changes come directed by last year’s damage – that escaped the regulatory process. The regulatory process revolving around rules of action is the intellectual alibi chosen by the Establishment for continuing on with BaU. Do stupid things faster and with more energy.

They have no concept of anything else because the system is geared to despise the engineering process and no other method of preemption is viable. The one salvation is culturally taboo. We’re talking reptile brain taboo here. The bipolar relationship society has with the engineering process, which it knows it needs to survive, is to hold it in social contempt. Engineers are nerds and eggheads. Engineers are separated from the normal people in their own skunkworks place. Show little or no value for their contributions and make great value of the obedient damage responders. Through cultural creed inertia, society suppresses the essential process of its preservation.

This double standard to the engineering process is part of the strategy. Praise their loyalty to corpo rules. Stop. Acknowledge the supremacy of engineering process paranoia. Stop. Attach the system loyalty target as limited to the $1 threat. The solution to the $540 threat is readily available but universally despised so fiercely that you, in no way, are urging them to attempt a switch. You must join them in fearing the accusations of disloyalty for suggesting SoCaD compliance. You can do no better than educate them as to the real dilemma – depersonalized as beyond their control.

The new strategy is predicated on zero selling for them to do anything. Loyalty praise. If the awareness doesn’t incentivize them to choose SoCaD on their own terms, it stops right there and becomes a data point for stakeholder legal process use. The only sell we have is to lawyers. We feed them knowledge and they make a dung chip which we harvest as fuel. It is dereliction of duty to be informed and then choose to not act to SoCaD compliance.

Make the workshop the simple quick test of the lock on failure. No workshop, no way.

 

Check out the triple play. First nail the corpo on DI. Then, inform his insurance co. when the insurance co does zilch, offer the corpo info that will enhance his coverage far beyond the policy? It’s a case of playing one greed against another using legal precedents. Construction owner?

The corpo loyalty pact comes in two separate parts OTA and alien activity guard dog.  Yours is not to question why is cojoined with “you are to promptly detect and eject anyone selecting activity by other methods, especially the SoCaD which hits all alarms.

It exhibits hypocrisy for a professional institution that makes such a virtuous display enforcing the SoCaD after damage to be hostile to requests for assisting in the duty of damage avoidance. What is the message here?

Regulatory enforcement operates largely after the event with historical indifference before injury.

Engineers have no special status under the law of contract.

It is no defense that management had taken all reasonable care to delegate the supervision of the work related to the damage.

The law may have an impressive armory of weapons aimed at avoiding damage, but it is intentionally blunted either by a deliberate lack of enforcement or by demanding compliance to a fixed set of rules of action. The instant rules are used to select action, compliance to the rules displaces all other criteria for choosing activity. The consequences become whatever obedience to the rules delivers.

 

Engineering process renaissance and synergistic progression. The engineering process is a cycle-based methodology for dealing with complexity and uncertainty that is completely connected to natural law and its derivatives. The process of engineering, an algorithm, is a sequence of tasks arranged in a loop comprising a rigorous sequence of structured  benchmarks, each based on fundamental principles, e.g., the conservation laws, synthetically linked in progression. No link in the circular cascade depends on magic or miracle or Herculean character. The roadmap is well marked where creative product is requisite to progress from one phase to the next. Those gaps that depend on creative thinking to cross come equipped with stop rules and the criteria for proceeding.

We live in a world that is designed. There are few moments of the day when we are not in, on, entertained by, moved by and augmented by engineered artifacts. The design process and what is called the process of engineering are one and the same.

Since the renaissance of the process of engineering in the 1960s, when it achieved the infallible grade, the capabilities of engineering methodology to deal with complexity and uncertainty have far exceeded the limits of corporate husbandry. Conventional corporate governance operates to dissemble and constrain the engineering process, allowing damage to proceed unhampered that is generally and increasingly recognized as avoidable.

In a misguided and frantic attempt to maintain executive control of the process, the same archaic constraints that were so successful before the renaissance are rigidly applied – regardless of the evidence they no longer succeed. As a result, stakeholder damage is engendered at a frequency and severity higher than liability insurance is willing to underwrite. All management response actions are to preserve business as usual and further disembowel the engineering process under its control. This combination escalates stakeholder damage without limit. New specters of corporate scandal are forming.

There are several measured trends.

Litigation is increasing

Severity and frequency of institutional scandal is increasing

The bankruptcy rate of large corporations is increasing

The failure of regulatory process incentives is rampant

The population of lawyers is increasing faster than the general population

The number of engineers is in steep decline

Public expectations of performance are increasing

These trends are not independent variables but driven by the productivity of the advancing engineering process operating outside of institutional control. Not only did the capabilities vastly expand, affecting everything related to our standard of living, the requisite resources fell within the budget of individual practitioners.

It is not what they are spending risk management money on that matters. It is the degree SoCaD preemption is supported or discouraged.

Loyalty to professional duty has always been a suicide mission. His conditions of license demand activities his corporation aggressively forbids.

The issue is; does practical capability exist to avoid damage? If there was damage in the future, would what we are doing now to avoid it meet the necessary and sufficient benchmarks to evade liability litigation? Can we validate that we are operating with judgmental immunity as the law specifies?

Ackoff: Systemic thinking considers the mission in terms of how the interactions of the parts, and the aggregate of the parts interacting with its environment, create the properties of the whole.

SoCaD is deliberately and attentively learning from your failures. The whole idea is to creatively and virtually encounter your failures to reduce the field of ignorance – which is what SoCaD is about. Don’t release until the field of ignorance is surveyed and reduced to a stop rule. Reduction is done by herding uncertainty into a black box and dynamically testing the box to measure its properties. Damage preemption is checking all the risk dynamics before release through models and proving grounds.

Engineering design is synthetic thinking, where you derive the properties of parts from the functions required of the whole. The whole has properties that none of its parts have. It is the difference between knowing a system and understanding it. It takes a lower-archy. The sequence begins with understanding the assumptions which limit the alternatives you currently see. Then, deny these constraining assumptions and revisit the alternatives.

When you shift activity selection to SoCaD, the problem immediately goes away.

Whistleblower abuse flows from the blot on the hive guard bees loyalty. Forbidden activity went on undetected and unejected. They overcompensate in damage response. Note that preemption is not just met with indifference but with universal hostility. We now avoid this response by reserving it for the inform/consent stage. If there is to be preemption, they must consciously choose so, not you. After the warning, you must show indifference.

The key in litigation is to show the lack of preemption SoCaD. No expert can fudge this scene. Focus on the activity selection process paramount. [sell to PLs]. It thwarts the expert conflict problem. What was the stop rule you devised and its basis for reducing the field of ignorance?

 

I have no stake in your switching to SoCaD task selection control. The law has provided me with judgmental immunity and a responsibility transfer matchline. What I am doing is acting loyal to my legal obligation to warn you that, should damage result, you will be found avoiding the SoCaD that will be applied in hindsight through legal action to benchmark your current prevention efforts. My assessment concludes that you are fully exposed to prosecution after injury for an offense to stakeholders I certify you are presently committing.

 

The public speaks of its primary interest as damage avoidance while, at the same time, it is quite satisfied to be paid for sustaining the damage instead. The public becomes serious about avoiding preventable damage only when it perceives that its direct cost of absorbing the damage inflow is exceeding its ability to pay for it. Three factors are colluding to escalate the genuine public interest in avoiding preventable damage. First, the insurance fund to pay for the damage caused by negligence no longer exists. Second, the institutionalized regulatory process installed to safeguard the public is widely recognized as a colossal flop. The more ineffective regulation proves to be the more expensive it is to sustain. Thirdly, the public perception of the scope of preventable damage is greatly expanding. Interactive computer gaming and catastrophe simulations sponsored by the media have called the old benchmarks into question. “If the disaster was so easy to dynamically simulate after the event, why wasn’t this scenario taken into account during the design stage?

Society nails the PE with the pledge to detect, warn and avoid “paramount” and then aggressively persecutes him in due diligence. It is a setup, a double cross. Society sends its PEs on a suicide mission hoping enough good will come of their ill-fated efforts to allow it to recklessly pursue BaU a spell longer.

If you don’t have liability insurance to pay for the costs of litigation, the engineering process defined by law is the definition that counts. This is the one to put in the website. Make it appear than the SoCaD is the one shaped by law, even if the trial lawyers don’t have it so figured out. [sell workshop to plaintiff lawyers?]

Duty postulated – its nature and scope must be sandwiched between the objective of the duty to the public and it means by which it may be implemented. Nested.

The real definition of PE duty is whatever the PLs can collectively make stick in tort coming after your negligent ass. To help you do your duty the law will not lift a finger. After injury, the law will show you no mercy. It will amass the world’s largest obstacle course to benchmark your pre-injury endeavors. It will show your neglect to act in a manner plainly indicated by hindsight.

There are no excuses allowed for duty. You can’t say the client didn’t pay you enough to do the full Monty on damage avoidance.

Loyalty is a universal given – to be honored. The focus belongs on which system is used to select tasks within the tribal loyalty silo.

If you are willing to pay for his time, the PL would prepare the case for your duty as has been done for amicus. He won’t lift a finger to provide you with assistance in meeting your duty to avoid damage, but he is quite competent to find you in violation of your legal obligations subsequent to injury.

Management is frustrated because it is no longer in control over the application of the engineering process, as it once was. And, the engineers who are in control of societies progression don’t even know it. Society has an aggregate leader, technology, but kings in name only. When management lost control of the engineering process, it lost control over social evolution. Society still looks to its leaders for protection, but the leaders have discovered the strings they can pull are not connected to anything that works.

To not preempt is committing an offense to your duty for which you forfeit your judgmental immunity. The PE duty is personal and no excuses.  There is no limit on stakeholders to whom the duty is owed. Since the engineering process can reasonably preempt all avoidable damages, this means whenever a stakeholder is damaged, you are automatically negligent.

To neglect preemption is committing an offense that immediately forfeits judgmental immunity, whether or not damage results.

The law established with the expressed ends of reducing damage is attended with a specification for means that cannot attain those ends. When the law is implemented with the regulatory means specified, it encourages the very consequences it sought to avoid. Those on whom duties and responsibilities are specified by statute will concern themselves with satisfying the letter of the law (the rules for choosing action) by setting up systems and procedures that satisfy the legislation paramount to any other objective. What you get is whatever the rules deliver. As time incessantly brings change to the context, fixed rules of action will deliver variable ends. As the mismatch between ends achieved and ends desired increases, rules-driven regulation operates to make matters worse. Regulatory enforcement operates largely after the event, when avoidance is no longer an issue. While the offense is always committed before the event, i.e., permitting a risk to stakeholders, convention withholds prosecution until after damage has occurred. The prevention of preemption, encourages the damage necessary to justify the extreme allocation of resources to damage response. The more conformance to the rules is compelled, the larger the gap between actual outcome and original intent.

The failure of regulation by rules of action is measured by the amount of tort litigation for damages occurring in those areas assigned to regulator watchdogs. The COE is layered with codes, standards and rules of action and damages subject to tort litigation have increased to an extent that no one can get bonding sufficient to quality to bid on COE contract work.

Historical indifference before damage, hysterical preoccupation with avoidance activity after damage.

In BaU loyalty the criteria by which activity is selected is unknown to themselves.

The forces of loyalty easily overcome any courage to revolt.

The law of tort renders certain conduct actionable by persons who suffer loss. PEs owe duties under the law of tortious negligence. PEs will be held to account for the consequences of their activity.

“Would the great mass of right-minded men in the PE position have considered it their duty under the circumstances to warn?”

It’s not the whistleblower as a person. It is the proof that forbidden preemption activity took place within the hive and it was not detected and rejected by the loyal workers. The violent anger against the whistleblower is an attempt at limiting damage to his loyalty rating. By showing great aggression, fewer demerits may be awarded.

 

The only way to achieve the same desired ends over time, is to vary means as appropriate to attain the goal. The set of rules boils down to one: select your activity as appropriate to attain the goal. This is one and the same engineering process.

The same legal system that will spare no expense to show you how easy it would have been to detect and avoid the damage, after the event, will do nothing to deter those thwarting your preemption efforts prior to injury. The law does allow aid to the preempters, but convention delays prosecution until after damage.

The law will evolve to match the code of ethics because the practical capability is there. The differences between the codes of conduct and the underlying legal principles will shrink. The danger can be “proven” in the same sense as the scientific methods stands as proof for what we cannot see. The pledge:

“At all times take all reasonable care to ensure that your work and its products constitute no avoidable risk of damage to the public interest.” Whatever can be shown in hindsight to have been avoidable can now be reasonably avoided in foresight as part of the process of engineering.

What determines the actions of the individual? The selection of actions is set by the benchmark of appropriate selection of the organization he is loyal to. The process of decision making (selecting action) is regulated by the organization to which the individual is compelled to be loyal to retain a membership in good standing. Selection of activity is either set by rules, the company way, where the corporation assumes all responsibility for ends or by what is appropriate for goal-seeking where the responsibility for ends is assumed by the individual.

 

Praise loyalty to the “tribal cultural shield” at every opportunity. The system they are loyal to doesn’t matter. Praise the loyalty and they will blab everything. Inject no input of your own. Don’t validate the $1 bias in lieu of the $540. You have the duty to warn, not collude.

There is no intracorpo pathway for preemption and to go up the ladder is to lose your job. Those up the ladder, as a hive member, are also ready to detect and eject.

The sucker punch to the PE was delivered by cheap liability insurance. Tort lawyers kept the public in its comfort zone with BaU expectations. Rising expectations in avoidance turn into anger when nobody looked. When there is now no compensation, look out.

[Franchise method to consultants to expose regulation conspiracy to stakeholders nested. Dodge reports]

All marketing is based upon legal exposures – but indirect. You take the violation to the violators’ stakeholders to be used against the violator. The violator can do nothing but violate anyway. And so the stakeholders in nested form ad infinitum. The best one yet is the triple cross with the corpo getting free liability insurance.

 

The organization destroys damage avoidance by allocating all resources to damage response (insurance). When the insurance was killed, it cleared a straight highway from damage to demise.

Engineering process – as the law sees it. Tort foreseeability is avoidance is design.

The mission must be sandwiched between its purpose and all constraints on means by which the duty to achieve it can be effected.

The hostility to preemptive whistleblowers is a manifestation of loyalty to “the company way.” The obligation to rule-based activity selection includes a universal duty, paramount to all others, to detect and eject anyone engaging in the activities of “appropriate selection.” Corpoman as robot is programmed to interrupt doing his chores to evict preempters. Engineering process, out of its cage, is a witch hunt to punish the disloyal sentinels. Corpoland is the hive. It is pointless to activate this instinct.

The allocation of resources between damage response and avoidance tells it all. Rather than focus on the regulation side, first sort the budget by what is avoidance. If it is very small, do not get occupied with damage response but plan how best to indicate the exposure. Recognizing the liability exposure is enough, a stop rule.

 

The 1965 breakthrough in method is the genesis of more things than the public realizes. When society went silent at Ashby’s announcement it did not stop the assimilation. In 1965 engineering for substantial technology, like the Apollo mission, took so many people only organized society could afford it. In that era, engineering for complexity was safely under corporate control. Individual engineers may have had the ideas, but institutions had control of the vast resources necessary to bring them to fruition.

Up until 1965, the labor intensive dimension of the engineering process underlying technology advancements, kept the engineers – working the process of engineering – under supervision following the traditions of business as usual. The mutual distrust, instantly formed, reflected the intrinsic conflict between the two incompatible paradigms. Since BaU controlled the resources, the engineering process was restricted and focused at the whim of BaU officials.

The engineering method for complexity resolution, based entirely on natural law, preceded the necessary computational horsepower to complete the task sequence by more than a decade. With the advent of computer power individuals could afford, the control of technology development broke loose from its corporate anchor and began to drift towards individual computer-equipped engineers. By 1990, it was possible for a handful of engineers to replicate the engineering work done for the Apollo project comprising thousands of engineers spread across a dozen large institutions.

The problem is that preemption is a forbidden methodology. The more they thwart preemption the more it will become necessary. It isn’t what they’re doing, it is what they’re not doing.

 

Proverbs IV, 7: Wisdom is the principal thing; therefore get wisdom: and with all thy getting get understanding.

Through application and experience with material natural law, engineering judgment can be formed and calibrated into a sixth sense which an engineer will trust as much as his hearing or sight. Knowledge as the platform of judgment grows from mistakes, criticism and self-analysis. Assaulting complexity comes from confidence and understanding of the process to do so rather than because of organizational responsibilities.

You must protect yourself from uncertain and open ended responsibilities, such as means-ends.

They will have no pathway for unsolicited warnings of preventable damage. Warnings is considered extraneous to activity selection by rules. It attempts to insert forbidden fruit into task selection. “Hell, we don’t even know what the goal is. Why should we risk deviating from the rule book?”

Aeschylus, c.500BC “I would rather be ignorant than wise in the foreboding of evil.”

Character training

Anyone with a stand on an issue is drawn in to a responsibility for the problem.

In short, they focus on regulation at the neglect of preemption.

At some point you have to tell the regulated-heads that by allocating all their efforts to the regulatory domain – in lieu of damage avoidance – they are defenseless in tort SoCaD in the event of damage. At some point you must tell them you must limit your participation in the regulatory side because it contributes to the neglect of damage avoidance and thereby exposes you to malpractice.

You don’t warn corpo directly. You never appear to sell them on doing what you think they should. No no. What you do is gather evidence and inform/consent and pause in silence. You applaud their loyalty to the regulatory system and separately indicate the defect in the system of choosing action they are loyal too.

Public attitudes are miserable guides for risks and the media, responding to the public interest, for example, take little notice of the daily carnage on the roads. Since we knowingly subject ourselves to the risks of road travel, we are not in any position to expect others to look after us more carefully in less dangerous conditions. Conversely, warning of impending damage depends on the level of risks already accepted. While the media might find a warning fascinating, it is equally well served by a good man making a fool of himself. The forces of our own minds conspire to betray us.

The central issue is not the conclusions but the process of appropriate selection the participants used to arrive there. Determine the basis upon which they chose actions and then consider the conclusions. If it was rules or did they use SoCaD. Address not the particulars, but first establish their benchmark for choosing action.

I have known corpoworld too long to believe in its respect for inalienable rights.

Irascible reactions.

The regulations, statutes and rules protect from some of the damages already registered, but rules do not protect against new hazards from new systems and altered social behavior. They impede timely consideration and adjustment. A practical regulator is someone who copies other peoples’ mistakes.

Preventable damage is very expensive for all involved in comparison with the economies from confidentiality. The precursors of significant damage are often hushed up by insurance concerns, litigation or embarrassment.

Public interest expressed in general expectations of professional service expands with the advances in technology. The risk of loss that the public regards as acceptable determines the scope of professional obligations. Net acceptable risk, readily determined, has many contributing factors pulling in various directions. The public desire for technical progress is attended by expectations that safety factors will have been exhaustively examined. In this regard, the legal benchmark for safeguarding society always lags what public opinion demands. The public is very sensitive to the standard being applied by the law to a risk they already chose to accept from that standard applied when the risk is materially imposed.

Every technology that advances understanding of the fundamentals contributes in some way to the science of avoiding damage. Advances in knowledge and computational horsepower already achieved can be combined to animate any future or past of the imagination. We can walk along realistically with Tyrannosaurus Rex or Darth Vader, as we choose, or both, and live to tell about it. Since we can dynamically and interactively experience the future in virtual form, prudence directs an investigation of the hazards and perils in attendance. The public does not want to find out, after damage has been done, that the events that did happen could have been avoided as easily as they were dynamically simulated in 3D for the evening news on TV. The public is less amused to find out on “60 minutes” that much more resources were devoted to cover up than ever were invested in avoidance.

The engineering work to faithfully and dynamically reproduce the damaging event after the fact is identical to the effort it takes in the early system design stage – when damage avoidance is cheap. In too many cases, those facing the wreckage learn that no one bothered to look or that warnings went unheeded. The fact that the PE was not instructed to avoid damage or not to be compensated for the effort to preempt damage is of no legal defense in proceedings of tortuous negligence.

There is no master brain controlling this situation. It is merely the aggregate of many small short-sighted decisions made in a complex network with no one keeping score or watching the waves. No one is tasked to look for the approaching tsunami. Everything is geared for response. Reaction.

The European view of the professional engineer is more appropriately based on trust.  In common with other professions, it centers on character in the classical Aristotelian Virtue ethic to exercise wisdom, sound judgment, courage and truthfulness. Off-spec results are accepted as an essential ingredient of progress as a source of lessons learned.

The regulator is as open to challenge as the applicant. Codes no not explicitly address the scope of potential hazards. Even if the classes of potential damage that do occur were anticipated, the combinations of factors to cause the events are quantitatively enormous.

The public does not regard a risk as acceptable when the morning’s calamity is dynamically recreated in great clarity and detail for the evening newscast. If it was so easy to reproduce on an engineering workstation after the fact, why wasn’t somebody considering how to avoid these potentialities?

The rule is whenever the CEO puts up signs to think and says obedience to rules, it is an announcement that the corporate management policy is dictatorship. Anyone caught thinking will be punished.

The only place I have found that awards a positive benefit for SoCaD compliance prior to damage is judgmental immunity. You can know you have judgmental immunity as you go. Insurance does not want you to know this. The auditors of every design process at release should be a PL.

The corpo goes out of its way to deter whistleblowing – which is detection and follow up. Everyone detects. Unavoidable. What they corpo does is make it a rule to not propagate a warning. It sets up a better detection system to stop whistleblowers than it does to detect fraud. Easy to test – make a ripple and see what happens. Ask to see the goals and watch the faces. Corpoman recognizes instantly that a request for goals is alien to BaU. He will either be happy you asked or hostile. He cannot be neutral.

We act to deter violations.

 

I now have the picture on the box of puzzle pieces. The box contains extra pieces from other puzzles as inert matter, but we now have a screening system to reject the insignificant. It is self-validating. The map is affirmed everywhere you look.

Collaboration networks work both ways. The same line of thieves with their hand out for a piece of the action on the receiving end finds no place to hide from the law when the heist has been found out. The same justification they used to receive money now haunts them with responsibility for stakeholder damage.

We turn the suicide mission to advantage. It gives us leave to pound all sides. What more can they do to us? We are preemptions sole source. Easy to show by asking the other professions to assume the responsibility.

When the cost of providing I/O to the supervisor exceeds the value he can add to the work face, supervision inflects to counterproductive.

If your loyalty is to the set order of battle, you get whatever nature and chance deliver. If you seek victory in battle, you must be prepared to vary your approach during the mêlée as fortune and circumstance require. Ashby’s Law.

List the knowledge requirements of preemption. In order to preempt the damage, which is control, you must have as many control options as conditions the system may exhibit. Preemption is design is huge knowledge content to appropriately select.

Regulation forbids task revision based upon consequences (before or after damage) and scope creep – the critic cycle.

 

Coupled with the rewards for damage response you must show preemption as a despised and socially persecuted occupation. Society is not just indifferent to avoiding damage, it is hostile. In setting the stage, it’s as important to show the societal aversion to preemption (kill the whistleblowers) as it is to show the limits of regulation. You explain what will happen anyway; that they will react negatively to the preemption SoCaD. This is a natural expression of the culture of their BaU loyalty silo. Individual variations are subverted by the common loyalty. Preemption is not organizationally neutral. Problem solving is constrained to damage response.

“When you get those negative feelings (about preemption), fellas, that’s your loyalty talking to you.” The big lie is that you were told loyalty to the rules will have a mutually happy outcome. When you realize it’s producing evil instead, you are trapped in the role of damage generator.

In BaU you can’t speak the truth about goals and consequences (the lie of the unspoken significances) In the SoCaD you can’t lie. (the same loyalty totem) A loose cannon is exactly someone loyal to SoCaD operating in the BaU hive. In BaU we turn honest men into public liars.  The big change is that the full, material cost of avoidable damage is escalating and the frequency and severity of this negligently caused damage has crossed a threshold of public tolerance. The public is in for a big shock when it finds out corpos have chosen the road to bankruptcy to avoid paying into the liability insurance contingency fund. Before they avoided preemption but funded damage response. When the destination is bankruptcy, damage response is unnecessary.

The regulator and the regulated, cut from the same cloth and with common interests, join forces to fool the public that damage avoidance operations are being conducted in stakeholder interest. This conspiracy consists of the regulator providing instructions and incentives to the regulated. The illusion conveyed is that the management of the regulated knows exactly and fully how to achieve the stated goals of the regulator. The regulator mission is to design incentives to encourage the obstinate management of the regulated to unleash this competency to attain the objective. When damage flows over this low levee, it is blamed on insufficient incentives to get management to apply that which is already known. The readily demonstrable fact is that, other than damage response, neither has a clue. The preemption SoCaD is deliberately unknown. (easy to test)

It’s amazing how quiet the Establishment can be when it is making massive changes against the citizenry (Insurance lapse)

The PE got sucker punched by society. He was bagged with an oath to hold the public interest paramount, specified as advancement without undue, associated stakeholder damage. When the conscientious PE sets out with his design toolbox to prevent rather than respond to damage, expecting encouragement, support and cooperation, he encounters social opposition of every kind and at every level. Only after avoidable damage has registered does the law retrospectively exhibit a keen interest in pre-damage activities geared toward avoidance. And then for the sole purpose of finding the PE guilty of professional malpractice.

The law should not be surprised if the PE is highly skeptical of the legal double standard – where penalties are aggressively applied after damage has occurred for pre-damage failure to avoid same. The institution aggressively forbids the PE to engage in the necessary and sufficient damage preemption process and the law is poised to punish him after the damage for neglecting to do so. He is forced to watch a forensic engineer working for the plaintiff demonstrate how the damage could have been avoided while he was quite capable of doing the same all along. Before damage it would have done more harm than good to insist on preemption. For the PE, faithfulness to the preemption SoCaD, blasphemy to the corporate creed, is a suicide mission.

SoCaD preemption is a process culturally despised by the same organized society that demands it. Only the engineering profession is legally bound to public (stakeholder) preemption duty. The PE is responsible from detection to responsible turnover.

The PE is the only profession with the duty to both detect and transmit alarms about impending failure until relieved of further duty by responsible authorities. Lawyers, e.g., have no duty to detect and seldom any to transmit “up the ladder.”

There is but one support provided by law for the diligent PE faithful to the SoC. He gets judgmental immunity. He can certify, as he goes, that he will not be held responsible for future damage associated with his assignment.

We hire doctors and lawyers precisely because of their learned discipline and we encourage their professionalism. We fill out the detailed forms of our history, including things we would withhold from the confessional. When the PE attempts to form knowledge to support the preemption procedure, he is accused of being a loose cannon – disloyal. “Yours is not to question why …”

When corpo unilaterally dropped liability insurance, the public instantly assumed an exposure it will be angry about when it finds out the hard way. With insurance to cover litigation costs, neither the public not the corporation cared about damage caused by negligence. The illusion of damage preemption could be handled by public relations without disturbing business as usual.  The public interest surge in damage avoidance will spotlight the law as to who is responsible for preemption. The search for the legal preemptor will be to find someone to pay for the damage. All roads will lead to the PE – the logical home.

If we are now “negligently” generating “damage” right over the levees of regulation in amounts greater than what insurance will underwrite and society thinks it can afford, avoiding damage will abruptly become a hot topic. No matter where the search for the obliged preemptor begins, each will ultimately and logically end up at the PE. When the lawyers look, they will find he already has been legally bound to preempt damage for more than a century. And, there is no place for him to hide.

The fact that the PE will be of rather transient interest to the law, at first, is because PEs don’t have enough wealth to take the bother to action. The problem the law will then have is an angry public, no other logical place to park the duty, and absolutely no volunteers from the other professions. You cannot park the duty to preempt damage involving engineered artifacts with any profession not learned in the spectrum of natural laws of systems and dynamics – the process of engineering.

In effect, when the CEO killed the liability insurance, he put a process in motion that will eventually boost the importance of the PE. The time lag for this surge to materialize is now in countdown. And the PEs don’t even know it. The Establishment orchestrated the professions to make engineering the one goat for the “suicide mission.” That was fine as long as the public accepted the cost of not preempting. Now when the stakeholders balk at paying the bill for negligent damage and the witch hunt begins, all roads will lead to professional engineering – the only profession without a disclaimer and where the buck stops. The legal duty is already there and no other profession could make accommodations to its rules in less than a decade.

The PE has no excuse. His stewardship of applied natural law sets him as obliged to succeed. No other profession has the public for a client paramount and for good reason. The PE has natural law on one end and public interest of the other. He is expected to use his learned engineering stuff as the first line of defense. PEs should be the first ones to warn because their mastery of natural law allows for early detection. They labor at the work face.

The only client action ever indicated in a professional strategy is orchestrated in informed consent. They choose among the alternatives, including zip choice. You never have the duty to sell or persuade. Your success cannot be contingent upon a particular client action. Your strategy must succeed in conforming to SoCaD independent of client choices.

The engineer cannot say, like the regulator, if his mandates don’t meet the goal it was due to the failure of the client to provide leadership with backbone, the right stuff.

Is the standard/rule in the structure of a directive to a specific individual to action? If so, conformance means the rule is the basis for choosing action. If so, what you get is whatever the directive obtains. It’s the means ends axiom. Thankfully, the courts hold it irrational.

You can be goal-seeking only to the extent you avoid damage. When such is necessary, as in R&D, it is tightly controlled by budget and physically isolated from the cultural silo. No commingling. Quarantine.

Goal seeking work is productive by the same loyalty focus used so effectively to police the silo. Deviations from method are immediately detected and corrected. The intensity of loyalty used for professional grade work is no brighter than the loyalty defending the status quo.

The organizational structure and resource allocations tells all about protecting the production line.

Classify the corpo engineers activity in damage response work. No preemption.

Anything natlaw driven is too ubiquitous to hide, too easy to falsify at every scale.

The loyalty lock on corpo culture blinds ordinary to the obvious. Who doesn’t know the skinny about Las Vegas, corpogreed, regulatory failure and the complicity of professionals in scandal.

Ethics and bearing are byproducts of the activity selection process endorsed in the loyalty silo.

The stuff that works makes the cut to the next cycle.

When the regulatory standards of work don’t get the job done, more is worse.

Rules giving the direction of specific individuals to action can never be damage preemption because goals and consequences are removed from the cauldron.

Help stakeholders hurt by damage to sue others for failing to do preemption.

We could always imagine hazards and events of the future. What we couldn’t do is see if the events were possible or dynamically enact them to validate our imagination of the dynamics. The plausible design basis events are obtained from ingenuity based on a static configuration, but the dynamics is provided by how the composite natural laws animate the staging. Seldom, if ever, does nature’s animation match that imagination.

Most events of the imagination are impossible because the necessary initial conditions cannot be obtained or the driving energy preferentially flows to unexpected places. For the events physically possible, the necessary computation of interactions through time is beyond human mental capacities by several orders of magnitude. When the requisite computational demand was exceeded by the computer, configurations of the imagination could be dynamically simulated as fast as they could be conceived.

When this great leap forward in preemption technology was achieved, the heralds couldn’t believe society’s reception. Expecting to be accorded like Lindberg, they were treated like lepers. The new technology was warmly embraced only by the developers of interactive gaming and pornography. With a few years’ lag, the advances in the technology for avoiding damage gravitated through the cultural filters to tort law objectivity and put to work.

 

The standard language of “thou shalt do this” assumes the responsibility for outcomes. When the burden of appropriate selection of activity is transferred to the standard, the worker takes on the role of a robot acting by table look up. The slight of hand trick by the regulator is to appear to warrant that the work rule will provide the objective and, if it does not, maintain that the program is flawless and blame the robot’s handlers either for noncompliance or insufficient backbone.

You can always independently validate natural law. It is nested and ubiquitous. There is no interaction among nations that does not exist in the family. When natural law based, nothing has to be taken on faith. What you can’t do is deny a claim on natural law without demonstration. Independent falsification is too easy to warrant an emotion-based rejection. The violent rejection is there in history also and the question remains why society did not embrace technology advancements central to its preservation. When engineers are about, denial by whim and magic will be immediately apparent.

What grips organizations paramount over its own best interests – even its survival? My answer is loyalty. I pose that the person thinks that if he holds loyalty displays first priority, society will take care of him regardless of organizational suicides. If he achieves the stated goal at the cost of appearing disloyal to cultural norms, the price was too high. To be a group member is to be obedient to the rules of the group for choosing action. This confinement comes at the expense of preemption capability. You can’t preempt damage when you must work by rules. All group bees are soldier bees poised to spontaneously attack any and all alien task selection schemes. Fixation on rules is a one-way suicide mission with zero chance for survival. The choices made are reflected in the allocation of resources.

When activity choice is rule-based, goals and consequences are excluded from consideration. Events of stakeholder damage reflect back to increase rules enforcement. Since the rules generated the damage in the first place, more enforcement means producing more damage at a higher cost of production. The rules are neutral, inherently neither good nor bad. It’s the lack of a full-features appropriate selection process for choosing activity that is critical to strategic success.

The system the government slaps at a problem, which the public demands action about, has intrinsic limits to regulate the problem. Ashby’s law of requisite variety. The problem developed in the first place because the corpo system has the same limits. All the rest is unnecessary frustration at the system they are loyal to. The system loses its ability to make appropriate selection. Activity selection by rules, engineering workstation, once appropriate to the challenge of productive goal attainment at a slice in time – does not remain so as time proceeds. The rules for activity selection are incessantly degraded by three critical factors.

The first corrosion comes from scope creep. The goal wanted now is different from the goal stated when the rules were baked. The second attrition comes from context convulsions. The environmental conditions enveloping the business of the corporation have abandoned the ruts of history. The challenges to progress are not the same sort existing when the rules were solidified. The third decay, completely beyond human influence, comes from the second law of thermodynamics. The spontaneous force toward disorder in the operational system and with everything it touches is relentless. Entropy growth can only be compensated by imposing appropriate changes to the task actions.

In these hot days of change, it doesn’t take long for fixed rules, brilliant when conceived, to spoil. When shelf life shrinks to a time shorter than the replacement cycle, also rule-based, the same rules regulating system that formerly made things better now makes matters worse. When the cycle time mismatch is not recognized and corrected, the combined aggregation of regulator and the regulated goes bankrupt. The critical factor that seals this fate is misplaced loyalty. When the rules solidify, loyalty forms an operational silo about them. The fixation of loyalty on the rules is so strong, rules cannot be changed even when the need to do so is generally recognized.

The loyalty silo can be mapped in detail by black box testing. The allocation of resources between damage response and damage avoidance validates the silo. The reward and punishment system also is a measure. The mere existence of data banks and action pathways is telling. In most cases, even looking for the items of preemption technology will be a forbidden activity.

The engineering workstation drives the work by whatever algorithms it contains. If the program is not a facsimile of the engineering process, the work it drives will become less and less productive compared to the best available technology (BAT). The corporation is nothing but a human powered workstation to obstruct the process of engineering. Because of the supreme force of loyalty, however, no member of the corporation can alter the creed. Personal will of the leader has nothing to do with it. The corporation would crank on the same no matter who was in charge and what orders he issued. Through loyalty rewarded, the rules have become the corporation.

The public will have its monarchy.

Loyalty cause blindness in rules. See no evil, hear no evil, speak no evil. In SoCaD loyalty, both eyesight and insight improve.

In treason to the public interest, we are not hired as learned professionals to use our competencies and ingenuity for the best interests of the company. We are acquired to fix problems caused by the system in place  before we hired – and nothing else. Consultants are hired only when the damage caused is thought to be beyond those confined by loyalty to the system.

Lawyers are usually hired for the same reason. The one exceptional case is the professional task for tort plaintiff. Responding to damage incurred, the lawyer task here is to search the past with the light of the preemption benchmark. The issue here is not did the corporation engage in rules-violating conduct contrary to the loyalty silo (negative loyalty), that it did not do that which was forbidden by the rules. The issue here is did the corporation do those activities appropriate to SoCaD preemption. The search is not to find bad activity in the past but to find evidence that the good activities required by law were diligently undertaken. There is no search interest in finding evil deeds. The search is to find those deeds necessary and sufficient to meet the professional standard of care and diligence in damage avoidance. Malpractice is failing to preempt preventable stakeholder damage.

The cover up here is not to hide wrongdoing. The coverup here is to fabricate evidence of doing those legally required actions of damage preemption expected by the PL that were never given more than lip service. When preemption is done to minimum standards, it is a richly documented affair. The defendant has two big hurdles in cover up. He doesn’t even know what activities to fabricate or how and evidence will likely be found instead that such attempts in the past to do damage preemption were crushed. The allocation of resources history will be damaging evidence. The preemption really was insurance.

The only consistent place SoCaD preemption technology has value is to the tort PL. Loyalty to corpo culture prevents corpoman from showing interest.

Would you curse god and shake your fist at the moon because you couldn’t, like Icarus, paste feathers on your arms and fly? And if the Greeks were so goddamned smart, why didn’t they know things get adiabatically colder, not hotter, the higher you soar? Icarus could have just as plausibly crashed into the sea from wing icing as from melted wax. Well, then, don’t fret about your helplessness with the wrecking ball of cultural loyalty. Such loyalty has lost as many wars as it has won. The issue is driven by natural law, not the prayers of man.

Regulation has to be in-silo stuff. It is accepted as an added chore because it does not challenge the cultural method of selecting activity. In rules-based cultures, regulations are indistinguishable in kind from the rules. The two forms live in harmony and stability because they use the same benchmark for task selection. Zero goals, zero consequences – select activity by the rules. The “code of the hills.” In-silo means damage response with damage defined as disturbance to the rules of production.

In client work you should be acting under the command of civil law or natural law then under client orders. Tell them as you go, so they know when you have hit an OTA constraint, which they can then respect. You will competently do the assignment as long as it does not include violating the conditions of your license or attempting to defy natural law. If they grant you your loyalty squeeze and relationship to natural law, the rest is on auto. You are the antithesis of a loose cannon. Your OTA is to the law governing professional activity.

 

They either will willfully reject the truth and get on the guilt train express or get trapped in the 1/540 logic. When they reject you everyone will know they are breaking the law and proving everything you already told them. You then have a documented “willful” chip to play later on.

Our game is to see how far we can get them to the implant fix. If they reject the workshop, there will be no implant. The workshop step is the early test. In this setting, no takers proves the whole strategy. It’s infallible.

 

The spotlight for the amicus reg is that we know, via natural law, about the limits to supervisory power. When there is activity pressure to increase the intensity, you know it’s on diminishing returns. We engineers are legally bound to know and inform the court. Once informed, if the court acts in a manner to support the regulatory side when its over diminishing returns inflection, the court is exposed to dereliction of duty to the public interest. He is willfully participating in a process that is harming the public.

If the regulatory process is beneficial and cost effective, there is no pressure for change (control loop). The existence of pressure to increase regulation intensity (laws, codes, enforcement) is clear evidence that the regulatory process now in effect is deficient. Unfortunately, it has no viable way to fix itself. If the first layer didn’t do the job, more will be worse. If the regulation is in the loyalty silo, very little will suffice. You don’t need cops out in the super boonies because the culture regulates itself.  If the regulation needs to derive a loyalty switch in order to attain the stated goal, more is worse. You can implant, conversion is impossible and to attempt to do it by incentives is dereliction of duty – malpractice. The regulator should be the first to know when conditions have changed so much that goal attainment requires a loyalty silo switch. His duty is to go up his ladder. All can be validated by independent tests and examples – they will never do an PCDC workshop on damage preemption which proves the case right there. That is we can make the case and show how it can be independently validated. The refusal to validate, proves the case. You have informed, they have deliberately chosen to ignore it and thus complicit in the problem against the public interest.

You make the case for loyalty toxicity with it being affirmed by the choices the players make reflected in their allocation of resources. Refusal to act proves that they are loyal to the toxic system – which was the point in the first place. PL food. The legal system contains both method systems.  The record is there. None will look. Those in the loyalty silo cannot change the scene from within and thereby are not asked to try. This is why we don’t interact with them. The pitch goes to the regulators of the regulators – the independent stakeholder groups. Those with responsibility to act objectively. Never plead for action. Inform/choice and stop.

What you do after they fill your notebooks with in-silo problems and solutions is to tell them that the whole thing is the $1 threat. They will be expecting you to tinker with the system as they do. Instead, you refer to your duty to warn that the system itself is toxic. Demo by removing layers altogether. Implants can use the same people now in the silo. The only thing you are changing is the system of task selection to be loyal to. This shows it is loyalty and not the individuals. It also shows that personal character and ethics has nothing to do with it.  Demo is quick and easy. Once again, when they freeze up – it proves the thesis.

Loyalty transfer is a snap. The system they were loyal to is the immutable.

Damage response side of risk management is within the rules-based loyalty silo creed. Ingenuity in creed defense is rewarded. Even ingenuity in stamping out ingenuity. The damage defines the focus goal in place of management and nothing much to do after damage but restore tranquil production. Faster is better. Preemption is far outside the loyalty silo. The effort to preempt requires tasks and intelligence that are automatically persecuted as alien in silo. Whistleblower book: “The goal of any organization is to eliminate the disruptive effect of the ethical individual. Organizations are basically amoral.” What I say now is that morality is attached after the fact to whatever you get from  loyalty to corporate norms.. Morality is never an input to the norm you must be loyal to. They don’t ask about your ethics and you don’t question the ethics of the culture.

Culture does not evolve from ethics. Ethics follows activity and activity is selected by a value system. Task selection is either by rules or by the engineering design process. Either can be ethical. It is situation and application dependent.

The order of battle now is infallible. You can say “It’s OK” at any time in any step with zero pressure and zero angst. It starts with establishing your loyalty benchmark as the PE SoCaD as set by law. (you cannot do otherwise) You do nothing but praise people’s loyalty to the system they have. They will puke their brains out about every problem and every solution. You evaluate the scene to the $1 regulatory benchmark which is damage response.  You never get to the point of criticizing the regulatory compliance system they have. You never suggest more supervision, only less. All levels are to be commended for their loyalty to the $1 damage-response system.  Then, and only then, do you comment on their standing relative to the $540 preemption system. Take self test on website. Give the list of missing and woefully underfunded activities and artifacts. Simulated deposition workshop demo. They get A+ for the $1 risk compliance and F for the $540 compliance.

The loyalists cannot get more from the system than natural law allows. Since they are likely over regulated you can compute the optimum by removing layers and watching results get better. The limit is whatever the fixed rules produce in a moving context. If the stated scope and goal creeps with time and unanticipated disturbances, while the rules remain frozen in place, all manner of damage can be generated. In rule-based loyalty silos, goals and consequences don’t matter. Damage response fits.

In the PE SoCaD, loyalty is directed to mission success. Since ends are fixed, means must be allowed to roam as workers think best. Design is the process. Preemption is the constraint on design. In design goals and consequences are all that matters.

 

The paradox of risk is that it results from the future being different than the past. Damage response relies upon the future being similar to the past. Corporations can no longer absolve themselves from responsibility for damage by claiming they didn’t anticipate an event because it had never happened before.

Loyalty is the supreme critical factor. The system they are loyal to defines the morals and ethics, not the individuals. Loyalty masks out individual differences in ethics and integrity. Those loyal to the “code of the hills” are interchangeable. The code is the fixed basis for choosing action. Therefore, loyalty to a rules-based culture prevents deviations and adjustments to accommodate necessary change. POSIWID within the silo means, their peers observe what they do in comparison to the code to affirm loyalty. You have to earn your loyalty wings incessantly because comrades are always evaluating you. The loyalty is to the cultural norms of the corporation, what it rewards and allocates resources to, not to the corporate health, wealth and welfare. Once goals and consequences don’t matter, rules is king of task selection. The behavior regulating system, enforced by every other loyal worker, is to the norms. Control is local and incessant. The good of the corporation, in contrast, becomes abstract and distant. That corporate context is ever changing is not seen as relevant to the work scene. To discuss corporate objectives in depth and locally related is held as a mark of disloyalty. The guide is loyalty to the benchmark of how activities are selected.  In a rules-based operation, loyalty to corporate culture (rules) takes priority over corporate good (consequences).

The value system basis of task selection is the key. What you do matters to your context. If your choice is being evaluated by rule-based norms, your imposed loyalty silo is the rules.  Since there is no changing the rules, task selection becomes a table lookup. It is work driven by an engineering workstation. It is too closely supervised by peers to deviate outside the silo without being detected and punished.  Regulation is to rules, rules have no change mechanism, so cultural norms solidify around task selection by the rules. It becomes so ingrained and habitual, no one knows how to change the rules without freaking out the barnyard.

For the rules-based SoCaD form of task selection, any effort to switch loyalty to a goal-seeking SoCaD form of task selection is totally doomed.  Because a loyalty switch is seen as inviting immediate social punishment, all efforts go to defend the silo right to corporate liquidation. We use our duty to know natural law and warn the public as our excuse for everything. You must reject associating with any effort certain to fail as PE malpractice. The regulatory v tort is the way to teach the distinction between forms to corpoman. The two systems are out there and plain to see.

As PE, you are both benchmark systems. You know regulation SoCaD ($1) and you know tort SoCaD ($540). To find the task selection loyalty silo in place and assess it as risk managed.  It is a case of economic mathematics. You have allocated 99% of the resources to regulatory compliance and damage response. The $540 exposure is naked. No amount of damage response capability can prevent tort action.

 

Damage response is in-silo for the rule based loyalty silo, while preemption is way out-silo. Regulatory mind set is a loyalty silo.

The loyalty silo zone is validated by the warm response you get when you’re praising their loyalty to the creed. They appreciate, subconsciously, that you can see the distinction between the intensity and quality of their loyalty and the silo nonsense they are loyal to. Regulation becomes an added rule within the silo, without regard for relationship to corporate purpose. Praising their loyalty and diligence is a productive way to get precise silo measurements. Once affirmed, you make no further comments about the rules one way or the other. It is a dead end. To place attention on the rules abets the conspiracy that the rules are directly connected to the stated ends. The $1 risk SoCaD is managed. What about the $540 risk SoCaD you also represent?

We need to lean on the separation of means and ends frequently in baby steps. Tie your arguments to law practice.

Use the walkthrough feature of virtual dynamic simulation for house remodeling to get the spouse to find fault before construction starts.

Preemption and deterrence requires knowing what it is you are trying to prevent.

Corporate compliance programs will not protect the company from liability and prosecution under tort law.

Our license to print money comes from our duty to husband natural law and to warn the public. We flash our natural law credentials hard and use natural law to distinguish rules from goals. You must do battle with me on the field of natural law and societies laws of professionalism. You must refute the laws, you can’t find a hole in my logic. Do Ashby and the burden is on them to criticize the law, not you. You are diligent in your duty and unless he wins on the natural law field of battle, you warn him that it is illegal for him to interfere in your doing your duty. You change the laws, then loyalty will change my approach.

It was enforcement and enforcement alone that kept PEs down. We are Sampson and they cut our hair. It worked. Now that the damage is so big, the public wants something done about it and the law already in place points right at the PEs. The responsibility to preempt has been there the whole time. There is no basis for making more law.

Just use the same laws they would sock on you if you were guilty of malpractice. PEs are officers of the court, custodians of natural law, and have a duty to warn. Warn means preemption, we use natural law to preempt, we alone as custodians of naturalism provide the SoCaD to the judge. Engineering is everything to the public and that makes them our client.

To get SoCaD and not rules. You must first get an honorable discharge from the former and implant the SoCaD. There is no mix possible.

 

The choice of bankruptcy has precedents in cartel law. It’s all the same via naturalism. Clutch tightly to natural law. It’s going to be a hell of a ride.

The insight is that incentives do not drive a loyalty switch – carte blanche. Incentives will shape within a loyalty silo, but the corpo BaU will persist no matter what. If the loyalty includes illegal behavior, incentives will not stop it. Don’t even try. College drinking.

What you do is report to them that they are cool with the one dollar law and fully exposed with the $540 law. Praise their rules conformance via hard working dedicated loyal employees. Then, show the mismatch to the $540 SoCaD – which you represent. Reject all thoughts of incentives, ethics, etc. and offer the SoCaD implant as the only way. You are required to know all this to warn. You are exposed to malpractice action if you didn’t see naturalism at work.

There is no pocket of law that deals with corpo that has any different experience with “regulation and incentives.”  It is always the same. The loyalty silo that caused the wreckage that bore the regulator gets into a code-decode balance with the regulated. None have engineered a loyalty switch – even at great expense. Loyalty is supreme and you can take it for granted. Check the matchup of appropriate selection and there is your plan of attack.

Always applaud the loyalty to the “rules.” Compliance with the dollar law is affirmed. Your loyalty silo, SoCaD tort, used as reference shows total exposure to the $540 law. Offer the demo mock trial simulation to illustrate. Deny the knee jerk reactions preemptively – no regulation, ethics, incentives. In view of what is known, it is malpractice for you to be associated with any attempt to loyalty switch. A total waste of resources. Give the fix as SoCaD implant in stages and let them choose. This report will burn a hole in the desk.

Each year now brings more advance in the technology of preempting damage than was achieved during the first century after Maxwell’s mathematical expression of control theory.

I will be conforming to the code of professional practice. There are several reasons for the commitment of my loyalty to the Professional standard one being that I can’t afford the malpractice insurance.

The requirement of naturalism. No postulations of supernatural entities or mysterious forms of agency.

Three senses of will: appetitive will (want), rational will (choose, intend), striving will (efforting)

Avoidance. The damage avoider produces more by copying what works and tossing the rest. Changing something that was going to happen to something that doesn’t happen.

John Horton Conway: “the complexity of a living individual (system) minus its ability to anticipate (context) equals the uncertainty of the context minus its sensibility (system).

The transitions are so regular, so unexceptioned in our experience, that we have been able to codify them into the future. There is reason to believe we inhabit a universe in which this process of discovery can go on yielding more specific, reliable, detailed and accurate predictions. There are absolute limits on our abilities to predict the future.

 

Incentives:

There is an illusion that incentives come first and if you can regulate incentive you can regulate the outcomes people produce. If you give the people incentive to not do evil, you will get good.

We don’t often worry about designing incentives for good works. Most incentive worry is about deterring what we call bad outcomes. The focus on incentives usually ignites after protracted adverse consequences from organized activity.

The incentive illusion assumes that the performer possesses the full knowledge and competency for the entire spectrum of good and evil outcomes. That is, the worker can achieve anything and the trick is to give him enough incentives to achieve whatever it is that you want or the reverse. Tweak the worker incentive dial and you control the outcome. This fallacious assumption is revealed when you blame any and all failure of your incentive system to get the outcome on the integrity and character of the actors. You sent the message via the incentives and it fell on deliberately deaf ears. Incentive is not the same thing as force.

Since the incentive-controls-work illusion is commonly held, it is the management tool for all problems.  Management is very uncomfortable with the skunkworks.

The outcome is actually set by the run in of task selection with natural law. What is the basis for task selection? Is appropriate selection requisite for the particular conditions or not? If the conditions call for intelligence and rules were used instead. (it is always the responsibility of someone to monitor the conditions to decides rules or brains). Loyalty to task selection mode rules over incentive. Oh my God, they’re trying to engineer a loyalty switch in a solidified institution. Whoa!!! You’re asking concrete to turn itself into maple syrup. It’s like thinking if you scream hard enough at a pile of straw it will turn into gold.

If the regulator needs professional loyalty, install one. If the context is rules loyalty, it will freak out and you will have your answer. You can’t lie to a skunkworks. It is far too knowledge oriented and in rules, the knowledge about goals, consequences and controls doesn’t exist (as a badge of loyalty).

What you do with a mismatch is make the case for it. Avoid the loyalty switch fix, explaining why – there exits the incentive system in its entirety. The answer has to be: do not attempt to fashion a loyalty switch. Install the complete stable system centered on SoCaD loyalty and set it free. You need to deter the knee jerk reaction to incentivize the rules-loyal as much as practical indicating the SoCaD loyalty fix as the way to go. You must be a champion to crush the loyalty-switch incentive option as contrary to natural law. The whole bent of rules-based operations is to repel all attempts to change the order of battle.

The people attitudes are shaped by the consequences of loyalty aligned with the necessaries of work. Individual variation enters the scene only when loyalty to SoCaD aligns with the work scene and then, behavior is shaped by the skunkworks interaction. The skunkworks regulates behavior to be “professional” on the spot. Rules forces all behavior to be identical. Either way, individual propensities are submerged to the dominant engineering work station loyalty.

Make the case that individual variation enters the scene only in appropriate selection only in special circumstances – in windows of ingenuity demand time that open and close. It is continual, not continuous. If individual variation doesn’t matter to the task-selection system, why waste resources trying to mold it? When the window of ingenuity does open, you can do no more than set the individual free to do so. Creativity cannot occur under force.

Why did all those supervisory layers occur? What were the protracted consequences that happened that drove the formation of another ring on the onion. You need to know that history. Petro and ACE. You already know the layers fail, what you need to appreciate are the driving forces which begat them in the first place.

Be no party to a cultural switch scheme in loyalty silo as the embodiment of professional malpractice. It is critical and essential to establish your loyalty post clearly and early in the client relationship because everything you do will be in reference to that benchmark. You honor their loyalty at every turn and, eventually, they will see the distinction on their own. Later on you make the case for avoiding loyalty-switch incentives as an option. When you cream regulation by punishment, you cream management’s hammer.

Incentives work to a point within a match. Internal competition can be good. When the incentive is to switch loyalty profile to one incongruent with the norm, it is a waste of time.

That the incentive of regulation is counterproductive is exhibited when the regulated complain of the extra work required to feed the regulator. This signals that the regulated have no intention of reform and the overhead load to fool you is considered excessive. Like the decoder complaining when you changed the code book again.

You avoid loyalty switch because it must fail and SoCaD forbids failure as an option. Note how the saying is worded – you can’t always choose success because it is unknown. But you can recognize failure when you see it coming and change course. You can have no part in a scheme to get the workers to switch loyalties. To do so is dereliction of duty. You are required to know this.

The key to watch in each case is the mode of task selection compared to the situational demand. Do this check firstly.

What I say is if you need brains over rules, forget the incentives bit, install the damn brains process and give it a cell phone. You’re asking for a loyalty switch – but it is paramount over the schedule of punishments. Rather than incentive for a loyalty switch, install the loyalty needed and help it defend itself.

Behavior = choice of action

The marriage of civil law to design.

The initialization step is always professional duty. Start with your loyalty to the law that applies to your profession. It is the $540 law. What they do is the dollar law and pray for no damage.

The trick is to stage closure via a mock trial with the PL cross examining the designer as if there was damage. You tie the simulated trial to the duty you came in with. In big jobs you actually bring in an outside PL, trained by you, to deliver the exam. You act the PL throughout the contract heralding what is to come. Closure comes in when you claimed your duty to tort saving the client the $540 and let the regulation matter slide to the $1 it is worth. The SoCaD with the regulator website puts regulation on the defensive – preemptive strikes.

The arguments are the same in the test trial as they would be for real. The PL attack is the same independent of the damage, so that if you can withstand one damage event, you have demonstrated immunity to all. The mock trial validates the promise to eliminate risk.

The mock trial would serve the COE and the Reserve. It drives home the distinction between regulation and tort professional malpractice. It is the designers nightmare and the failure of BaU. It shows the exposure extant. It shows BAT and SoCaD and the exposure. By using a lawyer and outsider, you are affirmed.

Over time civil law has perfectly adjusted to serve each form of organized operation, separately, with the law tailor made for that form. Civil law is a repository of benchmarks for the methods of appropriate selection shaped by long experience. Civil law holds the fundamental frames of reference for the appropriate selection of activities. Civil uses these proven, trusty benchmarks to decide if your choice of action was or was not appropriate to the context and circumstances. Civil law makes small course corrections to accommodate the advances of society. The fundamentals of appropriate selection do not change because the natural laws that govern the affairs of man are immutable.

You can develop the operational forms of method from the application of the natural laws of systems and dynamics or you can study the law which evolved from experience with what people did to preserve or threaten society. Both approaches will end up at the same plane.

Ever pee into the wind?

Corpoman continues until his supervisor tells him what to do next.

We can deliver and evidence the “law-breaking” act.

(objective type) Material violation trigger definition: credible evidence, based upon which it would be unreasonable, under the circumstances, for a prudent and competent attorney not to conclude that it is reasonably likely that a material violation has occurred, is ongoing or likely to occur.

So you have to know what means “material” and “credible” and meet this standard.

All the whistleblower has to do is to get the evidence assembled and give it to the lawyer. Two step whistleblowing. We could do a manual for the whistleblower that would keep his ass safe. He can nail the corpo and hold the lawyer hostage.

 

What these dudes are telling us with DI is that they recognize that our method is quite different than theirs and that since they are closed minded about their own and are not going to consider change in any case, they want to avoid the topic. Silence is an action used to avoid a duty and thereby covered under tort law.

They don’t want to challenge their own set. The SoCaD says to constantly improve process and, just like our hurdle, it is ignored.

 

The theme has to be method process. They cannot deceive. If the crook does take the right action it is still a right action. If a saint does not, it is still a wrong action.

Tort law is process. Duty is a process. The telltale is that when the focus is process, the who and the context is insignificant. You can’t have both. This means if the scene is preoccupied with the who and context, the focus is not method. Process is impersonal. You say that was a professional job and then attach it to a person. Obligations are action items. It is narrowing the set of total actions possible for appropriate selection. Duty is intelligence is appropriate selection.

Our method is constantly auditable and self-documenting. We keep track as we go as part of the method itself because it is forming knowledge and capturing it for appropriate selection. We have to follow the protocol in any case. It can be issued in advance as a roadmap. no other method does so. If another method has to do something with information to prepare for an audit – it is the wrong method. (goal definitions alone will do it). The information we need to forward the project on a rational basis is there for anyone. No more information could be developed for an audit above that being formed as part of the basic process.

It is good to be in advance of the herd as long as the basis is natural law. Tort gets paid for this. Tort is society’s instrument for providing incentive for commerce to keep pace with the SoCaD by collecting a tax based upon the differential.

The SoCaD is a transfer function. It is how the system moves from one state to the next in time. Is the mark connected to the SoCaD? Insert a test hurdle.

The designed hurdle trick in simply a black box test. We give inputs and receive outputs.

We keep thinking tort liability is like flood insurance. We never distinguish that negligence is not an act of god but a violation of a law.

Corpo Gov takes the view of the whole by building up the parts. Method looks at the whole by its activity. Method is a mapping a structure by expending work on a system.

Management as corporate organ for survival

Shocked silence. Entrenched denial

Regions avoided, why?

-threatens the hive organization its identity

-social structure taken as primary the ultimate threat

-would recognizing and accepting X, change the organizational plan? If so, repel.

The method is wholly operational and is about what the parts do.

The chief mistakes occur right at the beginning and it is by plan, intent and purpose.

I am not only aware of your cross examination skills, I am counting on them.

What PLs do is whole behavior (hive) not detail components (bee parts). Defendant wants to construct from parts up. PL looks from the whole down.

Any system of logic and law that claims to explain (predict) behavior must be able to show how the theory explains and predicts why the system aggressively rejects the theory. Why did society reject Ashby is in Ashby’s formulation. He has been put aside by a mob of looking at obscure pieces. A religious cult called systems where they only look at trivia.

 

It’s the hive. Corpo is the hive and its form is paramount. It cannot adapt. The thing preserved is the form of action. Threats to the form are repelled.

If you don’t work from the level above that one where you do modalities, you will be trapped in modality world. If you don’t deal with where the rules come from you must live trapped in rules.

The organization fears change in its transfer function (f) most. Change f (how we do things around here) and the organization changes.

The class of Enron has provided the blast for more insights into the true goals and priorities of commerce than any other disturbance in history. There are no more significant questions outstanding.

 

[Here endeth our informed consent ritual. The ball is now in your court. The inform phase goal is to deliver a package and make an offer. Denial of the offer must equate to both a lapse of duty and denial of stated goal.]

Notes to the non professional:

This duty schedule serves both the needs of individuals and society. For instance, when you need medical attention for a serious problem, you probably want the practice of medicine to be able to deal with it to your benefit. Next, you want the most effective remedy science and technology have to offer at a risk you understand and can accept. Because you never know what you will need next, you want health care providers to continuously expand the range of problems they can mitigate while you are well. You want the providers to police themselves so you don’t have to worry about encountering substandard providers.

Society knows that in order to have health care advances, it must allow practitioners the freedom to push the envelope through trial and error. In complex matters, it is the only way available to gain knowledge. This freedom to innovate is enabled by holding the professional to means and releasing him from responsibility for ends. The focus on method and the corresponding release on consequences is the foundation of common law (tort). If society ever punished medicine men for failing to cure a patient after giving it his best, the best care that victims of cancer could hope to get would still be a fetish. The average life span would be 30, not 78.

The SoCaD comes as a minimum set. All process, procedure and method are cycles. A standard that is weak or flawed in any part of the cycle, called the cycle of control, because it is governed by control theory, a natural law, will not serve the purpose. The weakest link determines the strength of the chain.

All understand and it can readily be shown that, because of the advances in method technology and its tool bench, since 1970 this SoCaD amounts to an obligation of the professional in most non-medical disciplines to succeed in the mission (failure is not an option). That is, the fact of failure itself is proof that the SoCaD was violated.

In the eyes of the law, this choice sets the corporation in violation of its duty and concurrently in denial of its stated purpose.

In the great kennel of society watchdogs, only tort incorporates a procedure for keeping the performance benchmark current and streamlined to the flow of natural law.

I do not know of a single licensed professional engineer who could not serve in a forensic capacity for plaintiff lawyer to show the court how, in the particulars of the case, method technology available at the time could have been used to foresee the damage before it occurred.

Method technology took us from an era where the future was anyone’s guess to a state of affairs where any future can be rigorously projected.

The Standard of Care and Diligence (SoCaD) is method.

The question is what could you do to a peer working as a PL?

 

It’s all about honest intelligence. Honest is where the stated goal is the actual goal of the chosen goal seeking method. Intelligent is where the goal seeking process employed is efficient and productive in appropriate selection.

As intelligence honestly applied will chose methods appropriate to seeking the goal in an efficient and productive manner. The same goal-seeking criteria also work in the other direction. The methods actually chosen and implemented are tracks that can be followed upstream to their goal source.

We assume when some entity goes to hell that it is the result of bad luck and low diligence or both. The facts are that people are quite skilled at appropriate selection to a goal. The great difficulty rises when there is a goal incongruency.

What we show so clearly is a goal mismatch – actual to stated – by attacking their chosen method as inappropriate to their stated goal. We catch them in denial sequence. I think people will be quick to accept the exposure of “others” as long as the spotlight of honest intelligence is not shown on them.

We use a detection method that ignores motive, intent and ethics. Action choice. Honestly intelligent must choose A. All non-A is misconduct and worse. The tool had to be natural law – everybody obeys no matter what. Denial has no impact. The denial of honest intelligence – goal-seeking appropriate selection, is the exposure. Incongruency detection, early. Done by trial.  It is a black box technique. We have designed an input to the Box especially reliable and effective in measuring the Box for honest intelligence by noting the output.

Wouldn’t a felon love to have the ray gun to show the legal system in felony? We shine the ray gun on whatever and check for honest intelligence.

What we are seeing is the denial sequence in various stages. Early choice of wrong method and then the mess to defend that choice. Common. The psychological sequence is the same whether by evil intent or by mistake – can’t tell them apart. Tort, by sticking with actions, doesn’t care about intent – the choices are called malpractice.

Natural law intrudes in a big way whenever the method used does not match the requisites of the stated goal. Any incongruency in goals (POSIWID) and goals stated is a great waste energy as far as the stated goal is concerned. The side-goal exhibited through the chosen process is most likely the preferred goal.

The connection of appropriate selection of method to intelligence is fundamental. There can be no intelligence apart from choosing to employ methods appropriate to seeking the stated goal.

 

Methodology is goal seeking.

Intelligence is, like ethics, applied after the fact as an effect – it is (efficient and productive) appropriate selection – which is a method. Therefore, intelligence is good goal seeking methods. That means they are good at gathering and processing information. Goal seeking processes are the supreme methods of intelligence, whether they occur in a machine or a brain. Intelligent is as intelligent does.

Natural law is not a goal seeking process. Natural law processes are indifferent. Natural law processes are neither good nor bad in themselves. They are simply processes that the laws of nature provide. The brain, under the guidance of natural selection and evolution, develops them or suppresses them in accordance with whether they are useful or harmful. The brain is a system of remarkable inflexibility.

The apparent unfathomable complexity we have is the result of a simple engine, like natural selection, acting over time. Rule-based activity (BaU), encountering disturbances, mutations, and the 2nd law of thermodynamics, increases complexity spontaneously. Rule-driven behavior refuses additional information and loses information about the original purpose of the rules.

The engine of enterprise (goal-seeking behavior) takes these inescapable conditions of reality into account. Enterprise invests work (not heat) to impose structure on the conditions to reduce the spontaneous buildup of entropy. Information is continuously admitted by enterprise to help appropriately select activities to attain the objective. The method of enterprise works continuously to perfect appropriate selection by using the lessons of experience.

What is tort but whistleblowing after the game is over. In tort, rulebook-trained umpires, called lawyers, review the videotape of activities on the field and invoke financial penalties for breaking the rules.

 

Do you want to know the truth?

You would think the orgs that are being punished for wrongdoing might be interested in understanding the system that is delivering the grief. Not so. No interest in preemption.

There is not the slightest interest in preemption. They will stay the course to self-destruction no matter what. We don’t know why.

The biggest corporate secret today is not the new products getting ready for market, but the liability insurance policies. Collectively decided to forsake liability insurance and are concealing the fact of huge assumed risk from their stakeholders.

There are two separate and fundamentally different philosophical systems at work here. One system regulates itself by the standard of replicating common practice. It is exclusively backward looking and has a cycle time that updates by a pulse reaction during a protracted period of disasters. Each pulse of change is followed by a long time span where practices remain constant and rigid. During this period of robotic repetition, entropy increases unopposed.

The other philosophical system regulates itself to continuously improve practices as enabled by advances in science and technology. Innovations in artifacts, methods and tools are admitted to practice on an experimental basis until proven worthy. The process of continuous renewal is legally binding. Since the inexorable increase in entropy is extracted by imposing the best available technology, the law can remain constant while the practices it mandates automatically adjust to the times.

As long as rigid BaU causes no significant damage to the stakeholders, it is the supreme method of choice. BaU has no bother to keep up with the progression of the capability of other philosophical system. In the event of material damage, however, the two systems are brought together by law into the same space where the benchmark is professionalism, not common practice. It is no wonder that defendants, when they find themselves in court, think they have entered an alien world. None of their skills of persuasion and guiding factors can save them. When the system that has compensated for entropy meets the system that has not, and the referee uses the low-entropy system as the standard, it is no contest.

 

The capabilities of professionalism are, as expressly intended by society, the product of the SoCaD over time, taking full advantage of the best available technology (BAT). Until the mid 20th century, professional capabilities were little expanded from 19th century practice. Since then, however, capability expansion has been rapid and significant. The benefits of increased capability are everywhere. One indicator of the size of the quantum leap is the relative ease for showing the connection of unforeseen damage to professional malpractice.

We have a system of common law for financially compensating those damaged by the failure of those legally bound to comply with the SoCaD and the system is flourishing.

 

The initialization is first dedicated to showing that the mission is impossible. The professional can continue service only as his ongoing investigation directed to that goal has failed to establish impossible with appropriate confidence. Determine impossible rigorously early – not by experience.

The initial assumption is that the goal cannot be attained. You only proceed when you have failed to prove success is impossible. The first goal is a stop rule on knowledge formation. We either have enough for appropriate selection or we know that further attempts to develop information will be insufficient. RBF is an information producing machine.

The imbalance between defendant and plaintiff is a direct measure of the difference between the methodology commonly used in the operational reality (business as usual) and the practices required by the SoCaD as exhibited by the PL.

While the SoCaD obligation has been unchanged for centuries, the march of time and technology under that flag has recently produced dramatic changes. The changes have come so fast and furious that the slower cycle time of society has yet to catch up and assimilate the capabilities. This economic significance of this lag is quantified by the huge ongoing success of plaintiff’s bar working on a different principle.

 

There is, for all practical purposes, no damage that could not have been foreseen in the ordinary professional application of the SoCaD. Using methods required by the standard as defined by contemporary tort law, it is a simple matter to show how the damage that actually occurred could have been foreseen as a matter of ordinary professional practice during informed consent  – and ostensibly been prevented by a design change. Since 1970, the methods and tools have been available which can foresee, for any system of any complexity, the dynamics of any damage-causing events.

Affinity – repulsion. One is to reinforce and improve the SoC – legally required. The other is to maintain the deception comfort zone. Holding up a mirror. This is the Flash Gordon truth ray gun – demonstrated. Honest men need have no concern.

The SoCaD is a good probe to separate rules from enterprise. The rules-head will forbid the topic – his work is set anyway and he looks at this as an annoyance. The enterprise-head will embrace the topic.

You can only sell to frauds when they have lots of money and are bored with BaU monotony. They buy the entertainment of defeating management fads. It’s a conspiracy to deceive. When they are financially threatened, they have all the excitement they can handle and will instantly jettison all extra stuff and retrench. These occasions are where you get the truth. There is no plan but BaU – appropriate or not. Bankruptcy is chosen over change. One last smoke. One last drink.

 

We have gotten into the circle of decision. The events have revealed the value system.

We must stop trying to inform the dishonest. If they are failing their duty by intent, what is the benefit to informing them about what it is they are rejecting. Some topics are for the entertainment of the honest only. When you report to PL you recite the facts of choices, what they did, and the why you avoid. You can’t let them think they’re important enough to fuss over. They have chosen to fail and stay the course to doom. Write them off as unimportant self-destructive robots. You’re on to them. Be indifferent to the lot. Once they fail, they’re all the same.

What does it mean when they don’t pass the test – it comes as a set

No stop rule on duty selection. What natural laws won’t they try to defy

Core issues undiscussable. Appropriate selection impossible. No hook

Will try to impose means with ends. Disregard the 2nd law.

Won’t define objective. Will provide opportunity for fraud

Increase risk of collapse. Unnecessary grief. Unhappy scene (only the animals in Dilbert are happy)

Failure is the option. Bankruptcy is management strategy. You will have to withdraw anyway..

Hospital accreditation a good time to be a patient

Unless we can find the honest man, the only thing we can to is inform.

When we communicate our real “stuff,” it must be to a real source – an honest man. We use Twain’s trick to deal with the others – “letter’s from outer space.” We let our target eavesdrop on an honest conversation, which nails the target as a fraud.

Whatever the goal for target, write to the PL as a report all honest all events. Write as a PE method nerd associated with PL as a forensic engineer service. Make up a case name or an excuse for the content.

Thank the PL for honesty stuff

Show failed professions – all sides guilty. Show signs everywhere as society unfolds as it must.

Talk about insurance money low hanging fruit drying up and PL options to enforce over wider area and tie in deep pockets and personal wealth.

We record what they all do, regardless of individual variety. We are clueless as to why. We’ll never understand why … a learned professional familiar with natural laws by trade would take leave of his senses in a futile attempt to defy them.

We search constantly but not one in a thousand passes the SoCaD test. We show them the same duty list you must hold them to in court. We show them the capabilities of the SoCaD available today. We offer to bring them up to speed quickly and with ease. All we get for our trouble is silence. The singular response from all that individual variety. We even explain that the silence, to the law, invokes the doctrine of deliberate ignorance and that as a “conspiracy to deceive” you can promote that silence into two or three more zeroes added to the judgment amount.

The greatest breakthrough has been the hurdle technique which led to productive testing which showed the prevalence of malpractice on both sides. The cops are as crooked as the felons. It explains why our story has been so unpopular. Now we tie our story to exposing them all as frauds and dishonest men – for profit. DI shows them, as defined by law, as in a conspiracy to deceive.

Wherever exposure of this conspiracy can be used for profit, that’s where we should go. The great men never realized the evil in their context. They were duped. I can now see where Ashby was suspicious. The world did not beat a path to his door. They loved his book as entertainment but when it came time to act on his news, they all disappeared. It took time but all the systems efforts in college have been snuffed out.

We now know that the amount of incentive to change BaU has nothing to do with the choice for status quo. Extinction is chosen before change. We have been on the pursuit of the impossible. Even the cops will not change. Nader would do a DI the same as his targets. He is in stability with his so-called adversaries.

 

Stability control zone: when the crook and cop are in balance both sides control to maintain it. Tort does not want to keep a balance but leverage with natural law. They get paid for beating the adversary not sustaining it.

I will demonstrate the awesome power of what I have to offer by making a prophecy now. Either strong affinity or repulsion. There is no middle ground.

Show the capabilities as the product of the SoCaD and time. If you wait until tort court to find out what the SoCaD is, you deserve what you get.

You use one set of standards in doing your job different than the one PL will use. The PL gets there by following the same rules you are supposed to use. He complies with the legal mandate, you don’t, and you wonder why you can’t afford malpractice insurance.

You leave the umbrella and he doesn’t. You get wet.

Is this job being run under the same SoCaD as that which will be used to evaluate our performance in tort court? You can answer that question very early in the project.

The best format for presenting the capabilities of method is not obvious. The “offer” should be attached immediately at the end. You can have all this power, as is your duty to acquire, and it is easy! When they turn this down they turn down their salvation – and form yours.

What does it mean when they invest all the social energy into proclaiming a quest for salvation when in fact they will refuse an opportunity to get it? They do not want the stated goal, but is there more than just the social churn and status quo?

In general the idea is to present on the duty list, show the associated capabilities and applications, make the offer and then instantly switch back to the specific subject matter of the reason for the relationship in the first place. This is ultimate inform consent because you can do your do in reference to this material. We are not here to educate you, we are here to do our job in peace and we take care of that business by exposing you as a professional fraud.

The delta in watchdogs and regulators is that tort is the only control that incessantly reduces entropy. All other is by step-wise lag reactions. Reactive in fast change can cause instability.

For an animal claiming to be intelligent, it is amazing that man will vary so much in his respect for natural laws. The same person who carefully accounts for the law of gravity in placing his feet will attempt to defy other laws of nature without end. If he believes nature is indifferent to persuasion about gravitational attraction, why does he think he can sidestep the 2nd law of thermodynamics – the Zeus of all natural law?

Our social system controls work like plastic money, you do as you please first and settle the bill later. Unlike a casino, where you pay before you play, you are free to act as you choose prior to the settlement. You can select your actions in anticipation of the public reckoning or not. If your choice of action happens to break the law, you can take your chances that the response will fall through the cracks.

The SoCaD enforcement via Tort accounts for entropy increase (method changes), BaU does not (method stays constant).

The source of the capabilities is the result of compliance with the SoCaD over time. The SoCaD directs the professionals to take full advantage of the best available technology incessantly and ultimately for the benefit of society.

As a client, the service provider could be a convicted felon – as long as he was compliant with the SoCaD – and you would have no legal complaint. However, if your provider did not meet his SoCaD duty to you, it would not help you if he were a saint (Enron had a professor of accounting economics from Stanford on the BoD finance committee during its reign of terror).

Challenging the SoCaD makes the same sense as contesting the law of gravity – while you fall. We can give any target lockjaw and expose them as a fraud. Conspiracy to deceive. (we know not for sure what the gain is, whatever it is they pay a hell of a price for it). It is a very serious error to continue an untested relationship on the assumption that they will chose actions congruent with their stated goal. Because of the predominance of incongruity, you must operate on the basis of fraud until you have tested otherwise. You cannot cheat an honest man. You cannot deflect a fraud. Do affinity test early.

There is one more psychological step you will go through, it’s inescapable, which you can recognize as validation that you have chosen dereliction of duty – knowledge disavowal.

It’s best to expose the incongruency and leave it at that. Let the target tell what it is that is so important to him he is willing to pay such a price for it. Leave him with the question to answer for himself. We get what we want by exposing him as a fraud related to the subject at hand, the why stuff is unimportant. Do not spend resources trying to help the incongruent. It takes work energy and structure imposition away from pursuits of the possible.

You will either attract or repel strongly. If you are an honest man, you will be attracted by my speed in determining that fact with certainty. An honest man will quickly discover that I have much to offer that will materially improve his performance and that I’m prepared to share and impart the wisdom. If you are not, you will be greatly repelled for the same reasons. There can be no middle ground. The lines of force are mutual.

No one can cheat an honest man. No one can reform a fraud. What we do is deny opportunity. We can do nothing about incentive.

We will either become close friends or, before the day is over, you will disavow ever having met me. (Gethsemane)

Because methods are known which are infallible in determining congruency dot.now. Infallible success is available. The benchmark of success congruency readily detects any participant in sustained deceit, fraud or malpractice mode. One who acts contrary or incongruent to his stated goal is readily apparent. The template of success, by comparison to the operating reality, detects discrepancies.

Validation of this standard is attained by verification that it illuminates discrepancies in every other “standard” used to challenge it and that the reverse is not true. This is, exactly, the test a natural-law based methodology must pass.

Any regulation based on historical artifacts (line.history) and prophecy artifacts (cone.future) is demonstrably inferior to governance by method (dot.now).

The focus is method technology and infallibility derives from the natural law connection. The success is attained by validating the use of methods of success – congruency as you go. The linchpin of infallibility is not something we claim on a personal basis but what we inherit from natural law. Infallibility is inherited from infallible natural law. Effects have causes. Ends are the product of means executed over time in a context. The as-you-go benchmarks are causes and means – not ends and effects. Not prophecy and not history.

As long as you have shown rigorously that failure is not inevitable and you are on the success paradigm appropriate to the mission, congruency, success is assured (risk has been removed). That process includes the controls to deal with disturbances and stay the course. It provides for entropy reduction by imposing structure (the method) and work energy on the system.

Others may get to the goal more efficiently and with a more elegant solution (creativity), but you cannot be accused of malpractice.

We have codified the acts of synthesis, inherent in professionalism, attached to natural law. The limits of analysis. We can refer to the synthesis analysis issue but seldom. This feature is actually one layer down and important only after the target has moved towards the issue rather than run away. The goal for us at first is to quietly determine the client “lean” as either towards or away from the message.

 

During the process of deflecting challenges to the status quo, the gap is widened. Commerce is not able to stem the torrent of technology what makes the SoCaD better and better. As the bar for professional performance is raised higher and higher, his exposure to incongruency increased his risk of legal action.

RBF is to build info to improve appropriate selection. You be as clever as you can to reduce complexity and then do as you please. Unless the goal is specific the whole affair is politics. The attitude is to assume the mission is impossible until appropriate selection information minimums are met. The minimums are objective and known. You must determine possibility first and then validate candidates and then proceed with a protocol that will handle disturbances until you get there.

Denial of the offer is dereliction of duty in general and denial of their stated goal in particular.

There is no longer a single case of damage in any engineered system that could not have been investigated in foresight, especially in repeating the exercise in the clarity of hindsight.

There is no licensed professional, given the facts of the damage scenario, who could not readily provide a procedure by which the event of record could have been preempted.

The reason you can’t be defended is the ease by which you could make the case for plaintiff lawyer, that the event was foreseeable. You have a duty to evict any professional from your ranks who could not. Foreseeability is the heart of informed consent.

The PL works on the same technology. Honest, objective, impersonal and, to avoid disbarment, natural law based.

What you have is a collision between two almost-identical engineered systems, one accommodating the 2nd law of thermodynamics and one not. While one of these systems is frozen in a context long extinct, the other system remains viable – getting wealthy from that very discrepancy.

The duty list – would you waive this for your health care providers? You did that for the guardians of your 401K and paid the price.

The duty list + time + technology advance (method and toolbox) = the capability available for the designer and therefore the SoCaD available to the PL. This capability includes economically efficient methods of getting the job done.

Because the duty and the capability exist to assure success, it is axiomatic that for any occasion where a project was bungled and damage done, malpractice was present. The working definition of malpractice today, to the PL, is BaU in inappropriate applications. It was BaU in our safeguard bureaucracies that brought us 9/11.

If Roebling had to use the method of the Big Dig for the BB, the only way you could get to Manhattan today would still be by boat.

 

The secret of the mess is the same reason we don’t copy the procedures of our great projects but greatly prefer instead to employ methods proven to fail.

How is it that one watchdog institution faithfully served its duty while all the other watchdogs were corrupt? The answer it has an effective internal system of self-policing and it is richly rewarded for doing its duty. The highest paid professionals in the USA, by far, are the cops on the corporate malpractice beat. When they can acquire the wealth of any institution legally and honestly, why would they risk disbarment?

The free liability insurance policy of the SoCaD is attained at the end of the informed consent exercise. The policy is kept in force by not bungling the modalities.

You have to wonder at the true motives when a choice is made to not qualify for the free outcome insurance. The attached significance is that mission success is not paramount either.

We promise them (perps and stakeholders) a total solution: free insurance, no fraud, as you go. We take their expressed wishes and grant them. Their duty. They refuse. DI in the first degree. We tell stakeholders about the evil corpos. We tell watchdogs about stakeholders. We tell corpos about regulators. We tell every target about the DI guilt of some other org related to the target. We play one against the other as a way to show the target guilty as well. So called victims collude with the fraud, like accountants and lawyers. Ultimate truth machine.

We report test results infallible that show stated goal is not purpose. Failed duty. Willing to risk litigation to protect real goal. Whatever the goal is, it is so compelling that big risk is quickly taken.

 

You win in two ways. First you get the free insurance. You also get the benefits of assured project success.

It doesn’t matter what the challenge is. Can determine rigorously define the “problem.” Can determine whether or not the problem has a solution. Can validate the “remedy” before building it.

By infallible dot.now can infallibly define (we have a method for this) the problem and infallibly validate a solution candidate (we have a method for this) before going to the expense of its construction and deployment. We can infallibly determine if the activities ongoing will productively lead to a solution – if there is one. As soon as the problem is defined, in terms of the SoC, the readiness for the possibility of a solution can be determined. If not, simplification can go on until it is ready.

Infallible means a procedure for evaluating activity as to whether or not it will lead to success that is incapable of making an error in that determination. It is simply checking on how the activities being implemented match up with the infallible standard of care.

 

What does it mean to you when infallible is ignored (all sides) in preference for fallible history and fallible prophecy. Why would they choose risk over risk free? The least you can do is put the parties on notice that they are in malpractice mode via DI – a prelude to fraud.

The Standard of Care and Diligence (SoCaD)

We can’t sell to a dishonest man – and we can test that that is the case.

This could be used by VC to test the plans and it could be used by the plans to test the VC. What we have is the generic truth missile. What if you knew that your entity was caught on video intentionally derelict in his duty. Would you still trust him with your business?

We can show that both the corpo and the BoD are derelict and inform the stakeholders. Put the SEC on the spot also? It’s the public that loses in all this. We have the truth ray gun. Are you sure your trust is well placed? Offer the public to put the ray gun on anyone.

One way that works is to show how the recipient of services can leverage the knowledge that his services provider is duty derelict. We need to find an advantage for the malpractice services provider to know that his stakeholders are crooks also.

RGP: I had a flash feeling today that when you got a business plan bullseye, everything falls into place and reverberates. When you have to coerce a fit and rely on promotional tricks, like the Aon attempt, it is really a sign that your BP is off center. This flash is repeating with the PL plan. We have a hot ticket! It just fits everywhere. There are not as many PL firms as there are corpos but we only need one.

The problem we encountered is that all of our previous targets are intentionally part of the problem, which includes just about everyone. Their rejection now becomes an advantage. Bankruptcy is the new management strategy. Couple that with the retrenchment mentality and there is no ready place for our stuff out there. This is a very bad time for bright people. When they resist retrenchment, they will be ejected.

The SoCaD “structural engineer” 12/03 “The SoCaD (and diligence) can be modified by law, codes, regulations enacted by government regardless of standard practice in the community. Aside from limited legal expectations, neither ignorance nor professional opinion can vitiate what the law requires. There are numerous common law doctrines that impose duties and heightened SoCaDs. It can be elevated, but not reduced, by contract documents calling for “best practices.” You are required to regularly review the literature published in your discipline. The SoCaD law changes constantly. It is not local industry practice.”

The expectation is that the professional will comply with the SoCaD to provide appropriate services that are likely to accomplish the purpose for which the professional was retained. You are not required to perform error-free. Only contract language can make you responsible for outcomes.”

No one publicizes that the SoCaD is infallible since 1970 and that failure to use those practices is automatic liability. PL is the key, the centerpiece. Might as well go direct – like the forensics. We are the methodology forensics. There is great value in anticipatory regulation of upcoming disturbances. Significant money. Like the drug companies extending the life of their proprietary drugs.

You cannot cheat an honest man. An honest man will not deceive you. We will show you how you can use the test of honesty to determine whether or not your trust in professional watchdog et al is warranted. Do a list of questions that should be on stakeholder’s mind.

Is your watchdog trust warranted? We had no business trying to sell our BP to organizations we know would fail the test.

Set the duty (legally bound)

Promise infallible method Black Box

Make easy offer to acquire black box

Rejection = DI = a conspiracy to deceive (legal definition). You have chosen an action (paralysis) contrary to your duty. Therefore, duty is not your purpose.

It turns the damage of simple negligence into intentional damage. Since you have refused the option to solve the problem you’re yelling about, we know your true goal is otherwise. Your choosing value system is not coherent with your stated goal. You fear solving the problem will change the stability. It will. How can we trust you when we know you have no intention of solving the problem?

We have a cheap simple quick test to find out if your trust is warranted. Refuse to learn the test and we have you nailed as a fraud.

 

We are whistleblowing the whole network. All sides. No one can prance about as the saint. The deception games are exposed. We are the lion in a den of Daniels. We have shown your intentional avoidance of legal obligation in this matter and cause for distrust. You tell me where the line is where we can trust you to do your duty. You intend to continue with inferior, inappropriate practices. There will be avoidable damage. What is there left to trust?

You play one crook against the other. We feed both sides missiles to sling against the other. Same sting process. The stakeholders will refuse to do corpo gov. The best would be to nail the BoD as DI. The PL parent could specifically offer training and warranty, at bargain rates, and get them on a DI charge for use by stakeholder groups. You will show up as the Saint and all else will look like crooks – to the public.

Nail the BoD, then offer this service to stakeholders as part of their sting. They will show DI and failure as a watchdog. Recite the facts and what they did. You can get all the benefits of altruism and leverage all aspects of your business at the same time. You don’t fraud them into doing a crime. You offer total salvation cheap and easy, which appears to be contrary to your self-interest (in the public’s eye) and by their refusal expose all else as frauds.

We are rich enough. We will show you how to avoid increasing our wealth. Rather than hide it, you offer to teach and train with warranted success. They refuse your offer. As appropriate you tell the public the facts. You own all the white hats. You can even nail the opposing lawyers for the same DI. Nested and Omnidirectional. Now that you can nail anyone, what is the strategy that will result in the most profit. [we offer PL some possibilities as a trigger for thinking]

The lack of even curiosity. The failure to inform oneself. The failure to attempt to refute. Target is too scared the claim may be true. Making instant spontaneous decisions to not go after this. If the issue was trivial or peripheral, they would. If they sensed it was wrong, they would attack. The spontaneous paralysis attests to the recognition of validity and significance. The choice to disavow attests to the ethics and duty. The key is that this missile gets the same paralysis over the entire variety of individuals. The debaters and complainers alike are all mute. This one hits deep and channels all the variety into a single common response.

Because if the appropriate methods are used, either the remedy will be found or it will be determined early that no solution exists. The right method only continues when there is an objective reason to believe that a solution exists. The early phases are spent gathering information directed to show the goal as stated can not be obtained. Objective methods exist to focus on mission possibility assessment. You don’t proceed on an act of faith that somehow a remedy will be found. You proceed on a basis that you can not show mission impossible. The first search is to prove impossibility. The duty is to prove impossible as early as practical. This is a major different distinguishing professional from ordinary. We allow corpoman to pursue the impossible under orders to do so until the end with impunity. We expect our professionals to detect failure in process and well before calamity is public. Any professional still drawing money when the failure goes public is automatically guilty of malpractice (should have known).

“corporate wrongdoing” = breaking the law

Infallible is when any other outcome would require defying a natural law. Take the kernel of method dot.now infallibility and logically bring it into other areas.

We can show that since 1970, the SoCaD was infallible for foreseeability. Since it is method, the event of unforeseen damage is enough to show SoCaD liability. The method SoCaD is a template for comparison to actual.

Deflect criticism about “greedy lawyers.” In fact turn the tables on the critics. Our Flash Gordon ray gun works on anything. We educate how easy it is to do right and that otherwise shows intent to harm and that anyone can learn how to detect this dereliction of duty in process. (if they don’t, they deserve what they get). Educate to attract leads. Do PCDC workshops as a services business. Offer to both sides. One to do and the other to police.

Engineer and fill a corpo DI data bank, through promotion, for use in tort to escalate intent rewards. We can show all sides will avoid their duty when it comes to the methodology SoCaD. Record malpractice mode prior to damage for use after damage has brough action.

Need to work on a module of professional duty. A list and description. Need a module on the methodology black box capability and benefits. The workshop offer stated in time and that it is proven.

I define duty as no less than what can legitimately be used as the standard of care (standard of scare) by PL, burdened with the same duty, to evaluate your actions for liability, prior to damage. It does no good to your financial health to meet all the other rules and flunk this one. It is the duty of the PL, following the rules, to present the court with the most challenging standard of care he can muster. He can be sued and disbarred for doing less.

The duty you owe your client is services to a standard higher than that allowed by law to plaintiff’s attorney.

The benchmark is the reasonably competent PL, not the reasonably competent professional or fiduciary. In order for its professionals to continuously improve practices (causes), SoCaD provides a pathway for obtaining free insurance concerning outcomes (effects). It is only when the services provider has failed to meet the requirements for free effects insurance that the tort process will work to his disadvantage

The SoCaD is the method, necessary and sufficient, to get free insurance for financial responsibility for damage associated with your services, that may arise The duty you owe your client is to perform the services equal to or better than the highest standard the PL can legitimately present to the court. The client has no choice but to trust his professional. It is the tort system that polices that relationship to assure that this trust is warranted. The venerable tort system, exclusively method technology, is kept “honest” by two arrangements. The first is total objectivity and truth based on natural law. If either side and the cop wishes to avoid endless debates and possible disbarment, the case must be based on the principles of natural law. If any side makes a point fully scrutable to natural law, the other side is legally obliged to concede it.

The second arrangement that protects the services consumer is that, unlike every other profession, the participants in tort are hugely rewarded for abiding their duty. The money to be legitimately transferred by the tort system is so large, the participants can’t be “bought off.”  Untouchable. Society has recently witnessed how easy it was to purchase professional watchdog complicity in damaging Society to a degree in excess of eight trillion dollars. Regulators were impotent throughout. It is the one untouchable profession serving Society that stopped the carnage and is preventing an immediate return to corporate fraud.

Aggressive DI shows that management is acutely aware of better methods. It deliberately chooses methods proven to fail in the face of this knowledge, even when the risk of bankruptcy is greatly escalated. The first thing we can conclude from the free intentional choice of failure over success is that the real purpose of the corporation, in the minds of those the stakeholders entrust to choose method, is unconnected to any stakeholder interest, including the investors.

We should get on record as promoting this before the corpos do it. We can nail the stakeholders as well for not conducting the validation test. It is a matchup of stated goal to real goal. We must include always that the victims are such by choice just as much as the perpetrators. Both sides are reliable in choice. Nested are we. We actually run the test which shows that others will not run the test and are, therefore, frauds. The same test that nailed the truth in you will nail the truth in your context.

Infallible at every level. This means you. What we did to you. As well as it worked on you, it will work on any size.

When you preferentially choose methods proven to fail over methods proven to succeed, there is nothing left of your stated goal. The test that shows the real goal is not the stated one is the same test, exactly, used for navigating a project, for corpo governance. You start with infallible dot.now as a baseline and add information from history and intelligent prophecy to reduce complexity and make better choices.

It is now clear that when the insurance market was soft, the insurance companies got rid of their brains. Underwriters were massacred and the discipline destroyed. Now that the market is hard, there are no brains available! Retrenchment is the strategy. The need doesn’t fit insurance BaU any more, so abandon the market. Russian dolls with retrenchment as a reaction choice. The new management fad is contraction. This is a great time to do articles on this. Now that the choice has been made, time to spotlight it and what it means.

Make it appear that management made the choice to not do better, but less of the same. Time to point out what it could have and that it is rejected and easy to test by anyone. We can show that management will deliberately reject infallible corpo gov to retain a system proven to fail. It’s not just choosing failure, it’s doing it in plain view of success. Management is well aware by virtue of deliberate ignorance. What the test shows is that management knows better methods are available – otherwise it would not so aggressively DI.

This corporate liability thing is going to get larger. There will be no general move to improve process. All is retrenchment. No insurance and concealed from the stakeholders. Bankruptcy as strategy. The wave is building. Do not swim upstream. Make money from knowing spontaneous. Make money from retrenchment by putting the spotlight on the crime in process. They will continue the crime, lights and all.

Any discipline that didn’t speak out and act for reform in the Enron mess is part of the problem. Where did ain’t it awful end up anyway. It’s going to be quiet between the politicians and regulators and criminal law, acting fast, and the tort process acting slow. This is the time for promotion. Use the outcry, I predicted, when BaU was threatened. Use the SEC list as an argument validating the method.

The trick in promotion for the SoCaD on the platform of method is to snare all sides. Those that wish to fraud are supported by complicit stakeholders. Both sides want the same game to be played. The stakeholders will avoid using methods that work as much as the perpetrators. All sides will resist the substitution of infallible method for proxies and prophecy. Therefore, the promotion is designed to nail all sides. The stakeholders, for failure to act, deserve the damage – this benefits the defense (stakeholders can sue other stakeholders?). The corpos, for failure to act, deserve the penalties.

We nail all sides and inform the public that that is the case. The 8 trillion is gone and they were the sucker. We nail watchdog groups just as hard as perpetrator groups. Since most people play both sides alternately during the day, we give them stress. We do not let them parade as helpless victims, but cooperating targets.

The thing with method technology is no secret. The laws of nature that direct the traffic of activity are part of the basic experience of life. Everything we do engages the force fields established by nature at the big bang. None are exempt. History is nothing but a record of the encounters of man with natural law – not national law. There are reasons why man attempts to defy natural law even when he knows it is futile. He is just trying to extend an illusion, important to him, a little bit longer before the day of reckoning. This is all about intelligent (appropriate selection) living.

We tie all this to natural law because corpoman goes mute. He doesn’t counter back when it would appear he is trying to defy nature. So we nail him on DI and tie that to his two-faced nature. We make him aware, in public, that he is breaking the law and complicit in the process that damages him. We make all sides guilty of something. Only the PL and true professionals are innocent.

The mistake that will be made is to reject this item as just another item of disturbance. By making the thing rejected the method SoCaD, two things are nailed. Intentional duty failure and assurance that whatever damage is done, it will be easy to connect the failure to practice the SoCaD to the damage. This is what PLs do anyway. We can use this trick on all parts of the network. PL was the only effective watchdog and there are good reasons for this. Therefore, any and all agencies that didn’t work are guilty of dereliction of duty and we bring that out. We must nail the regulator as well as the regulated.

What we sell is infallible benchmark easy to learn and do. We express it in terms of their own life experience. All we are doing is showing how the same laws which run their life can be used to protect themselves. Self reliance is easy and if you don’t do this free insurance, you deserve what you get. Anyone can play and if you don’t, your choice, you don’t get complaining rights. This works both for any one and against anyone. The ideal would be to get one sandbox player throwing sand at another sandbox player – unaware of being vulnerable to the same accusations thrown at the other.

If you’re not preemption, you en-COURAge damage.

If you start modalities before preemption is complete, there is no way to reel it back in. It goes to completion. Irretrievable.

Modality – that rule-based procedure sequence taken without further questioning. Just do it.

Preemption is process oriented, not artifacts. Need a clear definition of damage or we can’t recognize it in advance.

Doing artifacts before process adds to the damage.

What are the essential elements in a successful preemption process.

To criticize after choices are made promotes damage. Appraise the methods first – go where preemption gets done.

When the professional is cool with tort, his client is protected. Can’t do one without the other. We used BAT to preempt damage. The law does not require more. When the professional does not take free insurance, the client is on his own. The client can test in mid-stream by inviting an audit by PL.

Preemption has rigor and milestones and structure and completion benchmarks. It knows when it is ready for “release” to the other production system (Honeywell) a turnover to the damage responder system. It needs a subset of preemption practice to reduce entropy as a carryover

 

Trial lawyers should do a FM for doctors w/o malpractice insurance.

Construction as Mine Canary

Even IBM is naïve.

Damage event horizon. Damage drives the response. Damage becomes the task controller, not the boss. Go with the first fix. Inactive until damage v active until damage.

Repeat the established sequence OTA.

No all-purpose damage response – except full insurance.

Responders never deal with entropy – which eventually gets them.

Our scheme is complex in principle and simple in execution.

Management has chosen bankruptcy and you still expect them to choose preemption?

Damage responders meet preemption in tort – their worst nightmare.

Thiokol execs were rewarded for operating the preemption derailment system. No remorse for Challenger lives. Damage responders are indifferent to the victims. Pure lip service.

We can sell PLI insurers our scheme to avoid claims payment. They give us clients – we sting them and they have controlled their risk without using lawyers. They can drop the price and grow.

Preemption is the end of hierarchy and high CEO pay.

Where are the noisy CEOs? Where is the voice of the good ethical CEO? None? Is it ethical for the ethical CEO to remain mute in these circumstances? How would your ethical CEO respond?

It’s nested, it’s extremely general.

Each control cycle loop is another informed consent exercise. Nested. Every level. It never stops revolving.

Somebody must pay for the damage. It’s a loss. The variety of damage possible exceeds the variety in any generalized regulatory system of preemption. Must have intelligence formed to reduce the range of choice.

We need to re-classify our stuff to fit the damage axle. The reason is that it can be used to sort the audience immediately. You are preemption man – this is what we do – by legal duty as a pro. The others will be damage response people – by virtue of what they do and know. Tie OTA to damage response and intelligence to pre-emption and we nailed them! By going over the list of duties and knowledge formations involved in the method – you have you and them. You go for the free insurance. They go for the pay kind. This ties BaU to post-damage and professional to pre-damage. It uses our infallible dot.now to derive the status for us now. It is a demo of the power we claim.

We need to have the methods contexts rewards and associated information fields all done in writing as a handout. Then when they are ignorant of a topic or resent one that is brought up, they classify themselves as a post-damage guy. Now that they have dropped the insurance, the free kind is the only protection left for society – the social contract.

Everyone has two action sets that correspond to preemption and response. It is a case of appropriate selection. In the corpo scene, if the policy is OTA and damage control reward, it will scorn preemption. Preemption-oriented dudes will get the least beneficial context and thanks. This policy encourages stakeholder damage which provides the stage for the damage response gang to get their glory and rewards. The corpo reward system, known by all, will reveal the bias. You cannot reward both at the same time. To give to one subtracts from the other.

At any moment people are in either one mode or the other. BaU is based on OTA, management can rely on it, which is management by exception, which is damage response. Whichever system it is in force at a moment, preempt or response, its reward system will be strongly biased towards one or the other. The relationship to damage is the key.

The BaU system is OTA with special forces geared to respond to damage brought by BaU. The OTA gang is union wage. The damage response and control knights get extra rewards. The more BaU causes damage, the larger the response efforts. Liability insurance and risk management are part of the damage response system of BaU. The damage-causing BaU operation grinds on as usual unchanged. There is nothing here to remove entropy. It is a dissipative structure predicated on BaU bringing in enough money to fund the scene. When times were good for BaU, it could afford lip service to entropy reduction through management fads. The damage response groups undermined the progress as fast as it was generated – and rewarded for doing so.

The process that gets BaU is the preemptive one. It’s not OTA and it’s not damage control. Now, the law is all about preemption methodology so that the collision with BaU is inevitable – and civil law has the biggest sword. Our sting is nothing but staging the collision and marking that event. The collision is a 100% proposition. It can’t miss by definition. There is nothing you can do but point out the collision. The target has to choose which side he is on. He must commit. It is not our job to persuade them. It is our job to identify the mismatch, warn, record the choice and remove ourselves – remaining neutral throughout. Your bird’s eye view allows you to avoid the collision. Your duty is to foresee and warn – period.

We can make a case that OTA has lost a lot. It’s degrading fast. Rather than beneficial protection it has become a source of harm. This period of no insurance is a case in point where the workers will ride OTA to their job termination. OTA delivers its consequences according to those that control the OTA gang. If the OTA controllers are into bad things, easy to detect, the OTA will suffer. It’s the clash of loyalty with survival. Loyalty can be misdirected.

When OTA is beneficial to the worker bees, they don’t mind the leaders getting rich. But when the OTA is being used to that purpose at the expense of the worker bees, OTA becomes toxic to the hive. The leaders fly off to another colony to repeat the cycle, the hive dies. Our duty is to foresee and warn. There comes a point where OTA and the bias for damage control, because it is a dissipative structure with no mechanism for entropy reduction (by plan), collapses to extinction. We need to bring in the entropy bit here. Because entropy reduction is not OTA or damage response, it is banned. This is easy to measure because their transfer function cannot be hidden. We just watch the state changes to get a handle on f. Preemption is like entropy reduction, imposing structure with work, not heat. All else is robots and firefighters. The doings of preemption bear no resemblance to the doings of BaU.

When there was insurance, the OTA gang could do their class action act and get part of the loot back. When there is no insurance, there is nothing there to get. Our duty to our client is to foresee and warn, nothing further.

The worst for OTA people is that they see what is happening and feel powerless to do anything but suffer all the way. Plenty of crazy folks coming out of this. Mental health look out.

Now we tell who is what by their reception to the agenda of intellectual activities associated with preemption – in order to qualify for the free insurance and avoid the collision. We point out the built in conflict – in advance and our choice to avoid it. We choose preemption because there is no collision. We choose free insurance because it and it alone avoids the collision. When you choose paid insurance, you will have need for it and then some. It’s like Vegas slots. Every now and then a BaU dude hits it big. This brings in more suckers.

They don’t organize intentionally to break the law. That is a side effect and a price for BaU. It is BaU no matter what. It is pro BaU not anti law. They well recognize the two schemes. It’s so ingrained, they won’t even look at themselves. Question themselves. OTA folks do not question why. To be seen looking is taken as an act of disloyalty.

This is what preempters do. This is what the law defines as free insurance – one and the same. Minimum stuff. Therefore, this is what will mark out work here. All else is for post-damage response. During the period before damage, the bias must be on preemption – which is the heart of the design process. The two regimes are so different (context follows process) it is impossible to confuse the two. [table] Preemption is focused on goals and stakeholders. OTA is focused on nothing but rules. Response is focused on the damage.

The aircraft carrier flight deck must work. It either works or not. If the flight deck fails, the carrier fails. All is preemption and entropy reduction. Damage control is not king.

The axis is damage. It is the end for preemption and the beginning of damage response.

The definition of damage for this setting is not obvious. It will depend on the goals and the stakeholders.

Preemption World – Damage Response World

Corresponding artifacts

It is to the advantage of damage response to sabotage preemption.

There is no point in one type trying to fool the other. It’s impossible. If you are in one mode and in the presence of the other, it is a trivial task to discover the mismatch. Preemption mode is very different from damage response mode. One is protracted intelligence centered, like building a catapult, the other is athletic prowess and virtuosity in fast-acting aggression like a bayonet charge

If you are in a post damage scene, it is best to point that out as a total obstacle to a productive relationship. If the task calls for preemption mode and it is burdened with damage response mode – it is your duty to pull the plug. You will be undermined. The effort will fail. The purpose of initialization is to check the mission requirements and see that the method chosen matches. If it is a case for preemption, it will support workshops and SoCaD. All else is damage response mode.

Before the event of damage, during this time period, you can determine and verify if you are in free insurance mode. It is infallible. If preemption is king, that set of activities will be ongoing. All else is damage response mode. The context can not support both.

After the event of damage, you are the declared loser. The damage response gang has the stage. Slink away. Nothing you have in your bag of tricks has value.

Think of BaU as a bank robbery in process. The crooks need undisturbed time to carry away the loot. As long as the actual transfer can go on undisturbed, the robbery will be successful. What the robbers do not want is to be discovered during the heist. The stakeholders should think of their risk as a robbery in process.  They should assume corruption. If their safeguard is built on the assumption that the place is crooked, it will monitor ongoing activity to see that it is appropriate to purpose. There is no need for faith and trust. These are hallmarks of your garden variety corrupt corporate governance system.  If you avoid the enablers, you do not need to trust.

RGP needs to resort safety as activities appropriate to true preemption – like reviews before work is done. If not preemption, it encourages the damage and all the affairs that follow. You are preemption man. You also can nail those not. Don’t let them into preemption work because of their bias.

Preemptive folk treat damage as a personal failure to apply proven method. Damage folk treat damage as job security and an opportunity for special reward. Who do they get mad at when damage does not occur? The preemptive folks blame themselves. The damage response folks blame the preempters.

Why, that’s not BaU! Why, if we did those things we wouldn’t be us!

Part one of the law is the conditions of free insurance. If you refuse, you can remain cool with the social contract by paying for any stakeholder damage your refusal to comply caused. If you refuse to pay for the caused damage, the law will provide protection for you only through bankruptcy. Bottom line, the stakeholders are left once again holding the bag.

It is apparent that the SEC holds itself blameless for the 8T lapse during their watch. No remorse. Nails you as post damage oriented. You are lawyers well aware of civil law which tells you what to do and you choose to scorn it. SEC can have free insurance too. Congress went straight to you as chief watchdog. Derelict.

You impose yourself to help do the SoCaD on real shit. If they balk, nail them. Tell them in advance what it is all about and they will freak out.

You can tell by the subject matter around the coffee pot. The topics in preemption will be very different than BaU.

History and prophecy only exist in artifact form and can be sculpted to purpose. It can be valuable information and it can be very unreliable. The track record of funds as guide to the future has proven to be of the greatest scams on investors.  Less than one in ten funds with a good track record meet the average of all funds during the next year.

Any system of regulation or corporate governance that uses metrics of activity past or projected is a system of documentations which can be used to mislead.  If attention can be deflected away from the activities in progress, those activities can achieve their purpose. Infallible regulation systems appraise the activities in process. No artifacts, documentation or metrics are involved. The rigor of appropriate selection is the benchmark. If the methods required to choose practices are in good working order, the particulars of production are of no concern. The system is goal seeking and self-regulating.

If the methods for procedure selection do not meet the standard, nothing in the realms of artifact, metric or documentation will avoid damage and the legal responsibility for causing it. That is the power of tort. Observe what tort does. Activated only after damage is done, tort investigates exclusively the acts and omissions committed prior to damage – the preemption opportunity period. Tort is aggressively uninterested in anything else. Tort does not care about your track record and reputation. You may not introduce them as evidence.

Pivoting about the axle of damage, the either or distinction regarding preempt or response is generally and quickly recognized. Each domain has its own topics and methods. It is an easy test to push on one system and see the amount of objection.  A mismatch of domains for a particular situation is seen as a threat.

This is the power of the workshop – pure preemption technology as the direct subject matter. The axle of damage may be a good way to test target early. There are so many things aligned in the work context to support one over the other. The reward system. BaU is rules and dealing with the damage when the rules cause it. The damage control crew is part of the BaU system and when rewarded – there’s your value system bias.

Since choosing BaU over the SoCaD is never a practical necessity, why would management drop insurance you have to pay for, refuse the free version, and proceed on the bankruptcy? Just what, exactly, is being preserved. OTA ain’t what it used to be.

People must do both every day just to survive. If you didn’t think preemption mode, you would never arrive at work. This is why corpoman does nothing – he is waiting for the signal of damage to spring into action and get the rewards. If there is no damage response to do, he will scorn preemption work.

Retrenchment mode is total expulsion of preemption stuff – pure damage control.

The review of duties and the associated capabilities is a preview of the power vested in the plaintiff lawyer to nail any choice made by professional or fiduciary of OTA over duty. The courtroom collision of loyalty with duty is the defendant’s worst nightmare. He is being examined against a benchmark bearing no resemblance to the actions of those obedient to authority. If he would have attempted to comply with the SoCaD at work, he would have been discharged for insubordination.

With the goal preemption, is it safe to warn the corporate counsel that the actions and omissions chosen by the corporation are leading to certain stakeholder damage?

Do you have a system installed at the SEC where a preemptive whistleblower can bring his evidence and be able to track its progress through SEC verification and damage preemption?

Mechanical engineers working in corporate America, Dilbert is one, are constantly exposed to rampant violations of the SoCaD and inalienable rights. Without any example of preemption whistleblower success, and tons of horrific history to observe, any engineer would be a fool to speak up.

Do you have an equivalent pathway for preempting stakeholder damage at the SEC?  Do you have the equivalent of the corporate contact point to whom all the documentation and data can be revealed with the expectation that, pending verification, preemption will occur?

 

If you had a system, you would proudly publicize that fact and there would be an abundance of preemptive success stories to show on sixty minutes. It is very disturbing to find regulatory action to remedy a part it will not tolerate in its own shop.

That you have no intention to support preemption is plainly evident by the fact you have no system to support the preemptive process. The goal of preemption is to actually prevent the damage, not to avoid blame for failing to warn post-facto. The preemptive whistleblower engineer Roger Boisjolly, who tried unsuccessfully to prevent the Challenger disaster, was brutally punished for trying. He does not complain about the Establishment abuse to his life. He does suffer mightily from the fact that his failure to achieve preemption allowed such horrific consequences to occur. He does not excuse himself because there was no viable system in place where preemption could succeed.

In any viable world, there is always a methodological system in operation. Since there are only two stable systems possible, distinctly different, the failure to support one system automatically supports the other. There must be a system. Only two are possible. It must be one or the other. The flow of life can be diverted but it cannot be paused. Everyone diverts between these two systems all day long. Life forced to remain locked on either system would be short.

 

If you do not support preemption of damage, you are encouraging damage generation. Preemption involves a very different set of skills than that best for responding to damage generated. Society’s system of rewards and punishments speaks to the extreme bias toward damage response and, therefore discouraging preemption.

Tort is a system dormant until damage has occurred which dwells exclusively upon pre-damage preemption. Tort has the fact of damage in hand, an incontrovertible testament to the failure of preemption, and the focus on pre-damage acts and omissions. No wonder the plaintiff wins. By virtue of the methods and tools of preemption available today, very little is technically unforeseeable. Our systems are determinant systems. Their state tomorrow is directly derived from their state today, and nothing else.

It appears that you have allowed yourself to get mired up in details before you have chosen a goal. You have lost your bearings. You are pursuing the impossible. I do hope it is by accident and not intent. There are two reasons. The first is that a major tidal wave is coming to damage your clientele for which you are responsible. The second is that you are being warned about this damaging tsunami as I am legally compelled so to do.

SEC: Up the ladder and withdrawal is all preemption of material damage. It is the duty to warn. After the wreckage is fact, the ladder will automatically get informed all at once. The fact of damage generation means preemption strategy, however noble, failed.

Unless preemption has a clear and safe track to the goal of preventing the damage to stakeholders, the entire mission should be scrapped. Part way efforts will be punished so aggressively, the carnage will serve only to discourage others. The record of abuse of whistleblowers, publicly executed while the law looks the other way, is the only history there is.

Even our regulators have no safe harbor for the whistleblower – inhouse or clientele. In practice, there is no difference between bringing up a material violation of duty to the attention of the regulated or the regulator. The regulator will not tell you upfront that it has no pathway for the whistleblower to follow of any possible benefit to the stakeholders or to yourself. No good deed goes unpunished.

It seems ludicrous that a regulator in business to protect clients, preemption defined, will aggressively discourage whistleblowing on itself. If it won’t support preemption on itself, it cannot meet its mission. The class of Enron showed how very easy it is to obtain the complicity of every check and balance watchdog stakeholders depend on. Every professional watchdog and regulator was shielded by the lack of a viable preemption system. Thousands had firsthand information of corruption. None had safe passage to preempt the damage. The regulator has the duty to warn informers that it has no safe harbor for preemption. After the damage, informers will get a far better deal elsewhere.

 

For the professional defending himself in malpractice litigation, there is no part score for preemption. There is no defense possible if the professional is still in service after the damage is done. His duty to warn is frosted with the duty to withdraw if the warning goes unheeded.

The event of distinction is damage. The post-damage scene and systems we have are very different from pre-damage conditions. The fact of damage is the trigger event that switches one system to another. Preemption is one world. Damage response is quite another. You and your target are either in one world or the other. Preemption and damage control are mutually exclusive. Specialists in the post-damage world depend upon damage to take place and have no interest in supporting preemption. On the contrary. Specialists in the world of preempting damage know that the fact of damage conveys a failing grade to their preempting efforts. The event of damage signals the end of prevention and the launch of damage response.

All the heroes are post damage. It is popular and aggressive. It is the breeding ground of heroes.

Preemption is lonely and discouraged. Preemption is seen as robbing employment from the damage teams.

Tort is where the world of damage response meets the world of preemption. In a dramatic reversal, the duty of preemption is used to examine the acts and omissions in the pre-damage era of a system predicated on post-damage conduct. BaU is a system that rewards damage control competency to such an extent that preemptive efforts are greatly discouraged. Damage control people are hostile to preemption and make good benchmarks for evaluating better procedures. Tort has such an easy time to establish scorn for damage preemption, which is unlawful, because of the great bias of the system to the favor of damage response.

The duty is mine, the choice is yours.

The US Supreme Court has established the trial judge as gatekeeper of the SoCaD on a case by case basis. Because the standard must pass the test of objectivity, the only safe basis for the appropriate selection of actions and omissions is natural law.

Professional watchdogs based upon history and prophecy were easily bought off by the class of Enron. The professions and fiduciaries of law, accounting, finance and taxes were readily complicit in the fraud. All regulators failed. The only untouchable profession, once again, proved to be tort law.

It is the denial sequence. Corporate psychology, well known and well studied. It’s quiet because the central core transfer function is in trouble and the leadership won’t change it. It is a great time to see the actual relationships in action and who is really boss. Clients rule. Many leaders are finding out for the first time the limits of their influence in their context. With a flat market and 1% interest rate, who needs finance?

The market is PL – all other is DI target. Find and dart. PL is assumed to be straight – all other is treated as enemy. The test is method discussability.

Play along quietly until it gets to the method focus and if they wince, tell them there is no point to continuing on. If the central issue is method and it can’t be discussed – well, there it is! If it can be discussed, do another hurdle to see the commitment level. If you won’t do .., you don’t get the BB internals from us. Send them to the systems community where all they do is chat about peripheral matters.

Real big stuff is going on right now by the sum of the separate decisions. Commerce is composed of corpos making choices independently and we see the effect of the integration automatic by virtue of the network few understand. No wall has been hit yet by the change so that some watchdog has to see the impact. It is in process and we see it.

Design websites to support the market plan. Put method stuff together in its own website and don’t advertise.

No insurance and its meaning. Tie to method process as the engine.

Workshop BB a multi-purpose tool. It is equal to the SoCaD and all that it means in application, which is dot.now, which is infallible. The workshop is the equivalent of the inspection. Corpo governance is workshops!

The public will not take action. None of the regulators and so-called stakeholder groups will either. Count on this spontaneous and then make money with it. If they were professionals, they would be law-breaking by virtue of DI. When it unfolds, you will have them all by the balls as intent. No failure to warn for you. Notify of dereliction of duty and denial of mission.

The reason SoCaD is scorned is that it provides insufficient time for worthwhile fraud to take place. POSIWID. BaU is a context that enables fraud and deceit. BaU works on history, prophecy and ethics to the exclusion to dot.now method, the only infallible.

OTA and method science are incompatible. Yours is not to question why (chosen method) – ours is appropriate selection (why). OTA is a method of operation, like commandment #1 place no other gods before me. The method of OTA is the denial of all else but the strategy of following orders. Gathering intelligence about method is itself seen as an act of disloyalty. You might question the orders. DI is measuring the point where OTA suppresses further inquiry.

OTA is psychological blindness to the operational reality. The law does not require us to attempt to influence this psychological state. Our legal obligation is not to waste our resources in the pursuit of the impossible. To meet this pledge we must diagnose as we go. We are required to expose mission impossible early and quickly.

It is not our duty to try to influence the degree of openness to reason possessed by a client. Our duty is to measure the aperture for objectivity so as to preempt the pursuit of the impossible. We are legally bound as a condition of license to detect the conditions where a mission is not going to be successful, send the message up the ladder and withdraw if remedial action is not taken. You get to keep your mental block and we get to save our energy.

All this is nothing but intelligence gathering for the initial milestone of informed consent. I have minimums necessary of information I must gather to produce an informed consent exercise that will qualify me for free insurance.

You must have cleared hurdle X in order to get further attention beyond informing you of your mental block. You have the reason in your hand. If and when you’re ready, you know what to do.

Let’s be clear about the driving force here. The purpose of liability insurance is to pay the various costs associated with the inappropriate use of BaU. Civil law specifies the operational standard necessary to avoid responsibility for outcomes. The act of choosing BaU inappropriate to the circumstances of the task at hand is breaking the law. By definition, it is never necessary to choose BaU over the SoCaD. The SoCaD is the most practical and economically efficient benchmark of operations. To select a method inconsistent with the SoCaD is inexcusably and unnecessarily breaking the law.

Tort liability insurance is not a hedge against outrageous fortune. Unlike tornado insurance in Oklahoma, where the wreckage itself justifies the claim, tort is indifferent to the wreckage unless the SoCaD was not in service prior to and during the damage. The basis of tort is the SoCaD. It is used as the benchmark against which your acts and omissions pre-damage are appraised. If there is congruency, the service provider is held harmless for the consequences. If the appraisal finds incongruency, the services provider is liable.

You can get this free policy before you commit to do modalities that could cause damage. The policy is secured by the provider at the time of informed consent.

 

The lesson for risk management is that management never cared about it in the first place. When it became very important to preserving the corpo, they cut it off. They only supported it when it was unnecessary to preserve the corporation. The subject content was not a factor in value added. If it was ten times more valuable at one tenth of the former cost, it would still be scorned. Corpo is only rational in appearance when the money is flowing in to support this luxury. When money shuts down, the pirate’s flag is flown. It is a decoy.

 

You say it was just a few bad apples? Where is the voice of the good apples tending to the contents in the barrel? If the vast majority of the apples are good, where is their voice? Why is it not in their best interests to keep the barrel fresh? It is not in their scope because self-policing is not what this “profession” does. Why would they not want to restore trust? They don’t want to self-cleanse because they each want the opportunity to escape with the loot. If they really wanted to self police they could. What do they do – fund lobby efforts to change the law. This is not the stuff of trust. The conclusion is all the apples intend to be rotten.

The tie-in theme is method process and the gap and the record of the death-grip on BaU – taking our society down with it. Our loyalty to BaU is reflected in the power of the CEO to openly destroy the institution while we stand by feeling helpless and let him. It’s the same feeling. He counts on our loyalty to maintain his power to skim money to his account. Tie OTA loyalty urge to method choice. This urge is the source of the gap and the tort money machine. Make like SoCaD method is easy and solid and like everyone knows this because it is the same basis as tort wildly successful.

This thing has no stop rule. It is still far from the inflection point. Management is still thinking defense of the hive. All the actions we see are defense of the very standard BaU causing all this fuss. We see no actions from CEOs towards SoCaD. Where is the call for change? Where is self policing? Where are the MBA schools? The watchdog of last resort, tort, is all we have. The regulators are trapped in history and prophecy – proven losers.

Here we are yelling at tort for greed when it is our only faithful watchdog doing its job. Make a case that without tort, history of recent times shows that our society would extinct. What profession would save us?

Keep our stuff black box, but everyone knows that it’s legit. Show that given the promise of the black box it will be disavowed sight unseen. Not because they know it’s false, but precisely because they know it’s true. If they won’t go for the BB benefits, what is the point of getting into BB details? Must accept the concept first. Milestone 1. Work on this – set the stage for theme acceptance as requisite for details – which you are all too happy to provide.

Our methodology science becomes “demonstrative evidence” for trial and litigation purposes. “Failure to warn” litigation. Exclusions even include the “failure to effect and maintain insurance.”

BaU is a subconscious-driven process. Plan B is a conscious-mind driven process.

Intelligence gathering for appropriate selection. Is very different than repetition of rules. Unmistakable.

Are you assessing goals with structure and quantification measurements? Checking for entropy? Methods appropriate to complexity? Plans to reduce the field of ignorance.

We can now see that many aspects of corporate operations are “unaware” of management’s true driving values. Management has deceived well.

Corpoman lives in a world which avoids method stuff. His protection from the vengeance of his organization is to be an obedient drudge to its rules. Tort, which cares nothing about his loyalty to corporate policy record, is only interested in his acts and omissions in terms of mission. His corpo forces him to choose rules over mission and then when damage results, puts him in the third degree under oath in a court requiring him to have chosen mission over rules. If you want free insurance, choose mission over rules, choose standard of care over obedience to authority.

When management has insurance, the cost for the damage you caused from choosing rules over mission was covered. The organization protected you and kept on rolling. Now, without your knowledge, the organization no longer protects you. When rules causes damage, management runs off with whatever is left on the money and you lose your job.

Explore the tie between corporate governance and tort law. The question is will the corporate governance standards, if followed, protect from tort litigation. Look at the focus on history and GAAP, proven failures, and what tort law will focus on when damage is done and allegations are made. Operating in two different unrelated domains. Regulating by the rules of business as usual as you go only to meet an entirely different regulating standard in a court of law. Did you follow business as usual (today) meets did you do those acts and omissions required by law in your goal-seeking activity (back then).

The same echelon that makes personal money from fraud also makes it in bankruptcy. The choice of ruptcy is no big personal deal. Make big bucks legitimate rather than the old way by fraud. The big losers are employees and stakeholders. They lose more faster in ruptcy than when insured.

Once naked, nothing happens. Big lag where actually improve the balance sheet. It gets quiet. Flight of the brains. Retrench is quiet, fewer problems.

 

In order to preserve the society it is necessary to comply with the principles of reality. We serve and minister natural law.

Disturbances are Things that are met with by the way.

All thinking is regulated error.

Scorn for risk.

The future: No bets are off.

The slightest scientific innovation is but a wedge which is bound to penetrate deep into the status quo. It’s advance soon becomes impossible to resist.

The final step of mankind’s achievement is to organize logical thinking towards a continual evolution of better and better technological procedures.

Because of the tremendous advances in method technology, we have immensely expanded responsibilities

Serve the ideal.

Claim and obligation are coextensive terms. They cover each other exactly.

Tort law is a prophecy that if he does certain things he will be subject to disagreeable consequences, by way of compulsory payment of money.

Scaring the comfortable classes.

Commerce is fair exchange and efficient production.

Doing all he can to make a future such as he desires.

Why should we employ the energy furnished to us by nature to attempt to defy it and shake our fist at the sky?

Ordinary conceals ignorance by a show of knowledge.

The whole function of intelligence is to produce appropriate habits of action. What a thing means is simply what habits it involves. What the habit is depends upon when and how it causes us to act. Every purpose of action is to produce some sensible result. All distinctions of intelligence are distinctions of practice, of task action.

Hits: 26