Saved in:
| Main Author: | |
|---|---|
| Format: | Recurso digital |
| Language: | English |
| Published: |
Zenodo
2026
|
| Subjects: | |
| Online Access: | https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.20008621 |
| Tags: |
Add Tag
No Tags, Be the first to tag this record!
|
Table of Contents:
- <p>This technical report develops a structural and regulatory account of inter-system conflict resolution and stabilization in cognitive systems. Building on prior work that defined inter-system conflict as the absence of a shared admissible discrepancy structure, introduced inter-system tension and overload memory, formalized asymmetry in conflict burden, distinguished admissibility constraints on conflict processing, analyzed escalation and locking, defined conflict transformation, treated mediation as meta-regulation of conflict transformability, and extended the framework to multi-system conflict and coalition geometry, the paper distinguishes resolution from stabilization.</p> <p>Conflict resolution is defined as modification of the conflict-generating admissibility relation such that a sufficient shared admissible discrepancy structure becomes available for coordinated regulation. Resolution is therefore distinguished from de-escalation, transformation, mediation, and agreement. These conditions may support resolution, but none of them is identical with resolution.</p> <p>Conflict stabilization is defined as boundedness of a conflict trajectory in burden, overload, locking pressure, or escalation tendency, whether or not the conflict condition has disappeared. A conflict may be compensated, contained, latent, or locked while remaining unresolved. Conversely, a conflict condition may be locally resolved while residual overload memory, representation rigidity, locking pressure, or higher-order incompatibility makes the post-resolution trajectory unstable.</p> <p>The paper introduces the distinction between stable and fragile resolution. Stable resolution requires both sufficient shared admissible structure and bounded post-resolution dynamics. The analysis also extends the resolution-stabilization distinction to multi-system conflict, where resolution may be local, dyadic, subset-level, coalition-level, or configuration-level. The resulting framework shows that stabilization does not imply resolution, resolution does not imply stability, and stable resolution requires bounded dynamics against recurrence, overload accumulation, and re-locking.</p>