This domain applies the IR5 Human Compatibility Framework to the systems institutions use to allocate resources, enforce rules, make decisions, and manage people. That includes funding and grants, procurement, hiring, policy implementation, administrative workflows, and any system that determines who gets access, support, approval, or opportunity. These systems are often treated as neutral, even though they shape human outcomes in profound ways.

 

The framework stays the same. What changes is the type of power being evaluated. In this domain, we begin by asking how decisions are made, whether the criteria are understandable, where accountability sits, and what forms of appeal or recourse actually exist. We then apply the same IR5 logic used across the framework: refusal patterns first, core compatibility dimensions second, and structured human judgment throughout. This allows us to assess not only whether governance is efficient, but whether it remains fair, legible, and contestable for the people affected by it.

 

What makes this domain specific is the kind of risks it brings into focus. Governance systems become incompatible when decisions are unchallengeable, criteria are hidden, bureaucracy becomes coercive, or institutions deflect responsibility into process. A system may be administratively clean while producing exclusion, fear, or civic resignation. For that reason, this module pays particular attention to legibility, recourse, burden distribution, role clarity, and the preservation of human dignity inside institutional systems.

 

IR5 uses this domain to help institutions make decisions in ways that remain governable by humans, not just executable by systems.