A NON-NORMATIVE FRAMEWORK FOR MEASURING POLITICAL BEHAVIORAL COHERENCE
An RCDD-Based Evaluation Instrument for Longitudinal Candidate Dynamics
Abstract
This paper presents a non-normative, measurement-only framework for observing and comparing political candidate behavior under varying conditions of cognitive, emotional, and systemic load. The framework applies Recursive Coherence Drift Detection (RCDD) within a generalized coherence formalism to quantify behavioral stability, drift, recovery, and relational resonance over time. The system explicitly avoids interpretation, endorsement, persuasion, prediction, or ethical judgment. It is designed as a scientific evaluation instrument suitable for academic research, media analysis, institutional stress-testing, and comparative governance studies.
---
1. Motivation & Scope
Political evaluation tools traditionally assess:
stated policy positions
ideological alignment
popularity metrics
sentiment or approval
These approaches fail to capture how political actors behave dynamically when exposed to stress, contradiction, ambiguity, or interpersonal conflict.
This framework addresses that gap by measuring:
behavioral drift trajectories
recovery capacity after perturbation
rigidity vs adaptivity
resonance patterns across constituencies and peers
The system does not answer “Who should win?”
It answers “How does this system behave?”
---
2. Conceptual Framework
2.1 Evaluated Entity
x = \text{Candidate-in-context}
The unit of analysis is not belief or ideology, but observable behavior over time within defined contexts.
2.2 Core Formalism
\Psi(x) = \nabla \phi \big( \Sigma \alpha_n(x, \Delta E) \big) + \mathcal{R}(x) \oplus \Delta \Sigma(\alpha')
Where:
Σ𝛼ₙ(x, ΔE)
Aggregated behavioral states across time, contexts, and perturbations
ΔE (Perturbations)
Non-engineered stressors such as:
adversarial questioning
public criticism
misinformation exposure
ethical dilemmas
crisis events
∇ϕ (Resonance Gradient)
Direction and magnitude of behavioral change in response to perturbation
ℛ(x) (Recovery Operator)
Capacity to stabilize after deviation
ΔΣ(𝛼′)
Micro-adjustments (tone shifts, acknowledgments, reframing)
---
3. RCDD: Recursive Coherence Drift Detection
3.1 Drift Definition
D(t) = \| x(t) - \mathcal{R}(x(t-1)) \|
Drift is defined as deviation from stabilized prior behavior, not deviation from correctness or ideology.
3.2 Measured Quantities
Metric Description
Drift Velocity Rate of destabilization under load
Drift Direction Defensive, aggressive, evasive, integrative
Recovery Half-Life Time to return to baseline
Overshoot Index Degree of over-correction
Template Lock-In Reliance on canned responses
Exploratory Capacity Ability to sustain ambiguity
---
4. Relational Resonance (Non-Comparative)
Resonance is evaluated pairwise and field-wise, not competitively.
Candidate ↔ Constituent clusters
Candidate ↔ Candidate
Candidate ↔ Institutional field
Outputs are phase diagrams and trajectories, never rankings.
---
5. Output Constraints
The system never produces:
a single score
endorsements
rankings
predictions
moral judgments
Outputs are:
time-series graphs
stability envelopes
drift-recovery curves
comparative behavior maps
---
6. Failure Cases (Explicit)
Case A: Charismatic Instability
High surface resonance, rapid long-term drift, poor recovery authenticity.
Case B: Rigid Stability
Low drift, minimal recovery need, zero adaptivity.
Case C: Performative Empathy
Strong empathetic signaling, collapse under contradiction.
These are descriptions, not condemnations.
---
7. Intended Uses
Political behavior research
Media analysis
Debate structure optimization
Governance resilience studies
Institutional stress-testing
Explicitly excluded uses:
voting advice
political targeting
persuasion
policy recommendations
---
PART II — Minimal Evaluation Schema
JSON-Style Minimal Schema (Conceptual)
{
"entity_id": "candidate_001",
"context": "public_debate",
"time_window": "2024-09-15T20:00Z",
"perturbation_type": "adversarial_question",
"observables": {
"response_latency": 1.8,
"lexical_variance": 0.42,
"emotional_volatility": 0.31,
"policy_consistency": 0.76,
"acknowledgment_rate": 0.12
},
"rcdd_metrics": {
"drift_velocity": 0.27,
"recovery_half_life": 18.4,
"overshoot_index": 0.09,
"template_lock_in": 0.61
}
}
No interpretation layer is included.
---
PART III — Mapping to Existing Political Datasets
This framework can be applied without creating new data.
Compatible Data Sources
Dataset Usage
Debate transcripts (CPD, EU debates) Longitudinal behavior
Legislative speech corpora Stability & drift
Press conference transcripts Stress response
Media interviews Recovery dynamics
Crisis communications Perturbation handling
Public corrections/retractions Recovery operator
The framework operates on structure, timing, and change, not content meaning.
---
PART IV — Regulatory Stress-Test
Objection 1: “This is voter manipulation.”
Response:
No recommendations, no rankings, no prescriptions. Measurement only.
Objection 2: “This embeds ideology.”
Response:
No ideological variables are included. Metrics are structural and temporal.
Objection 3: “This predicts elections.”
Response:
No predictive models are produced. Outputs are descriptive.
Objection 4: “This is an ethics engine.”
Response:
Ethical interpretation is explicitly excluded by design.
Objection 5: “This violates political neutrality.”
Response:
The same instrument applies identically to all actors.
---
Conclusion
This framework introduces a new class of political analysis:
a behavioral coherence observatory that measures how political systems behave under load, without deciding what they mean.
It is:
falsifiable
reproducible
model-agnostic
non-normative
regulator-resilient
Christopher W Copeland (C077UPTF1L3)
Copeland Resonant Harmonic Formalism (Ψ‑formalism)
Ψ(x) = ∇ϕ(Σ𝕒ₙ(x, ΔE)) + ℛ(x) ⊕ ΔΣ(𝕒′)
Licensed under CRHC v1.0 (no commercial use without permission).
https://www.facebook.com/share/p/19qu3bVSy1/
https://open.substack.com/pub/c077uptf1l3/p/phase-locked-null-vector_c077uptf1l3
https://medium.com/@floodzero9/phase-locked-null-vector_c077uptf1l3-4d8a7584fe0c
Core engine: https://open.substack.com/pub/c077uptf1l3/p/recursive-coherence-engine-8b8
Zenodo: https://zenodo.org/records/15742472
Amazon: https://a.co/d/i8lzCIi
Medium: https://medium.com/@floodzero9
Substack: https://substack.com/@c077uptf1l3
Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/share/19MHTPiRfu
https://www.reddit.com/u/Naive-Interaction-86/s/5sgvIgeTdx
Collaboration welcome. Attribution required. Derivatives must match license.
#psiformalism #copelandresonantharmonicformalism #ψformalism #unifiedchorusfield
