Governing Emergent Role Specialization: Stability Laws for Agentic Companies Under Constraint Density

1. Introduction

1.1 The Agentic Company

An agentic company is an organization in which a significant fraction of operational decisions are made by autonomous AI agents rather than human employees. Unlike traditional automation — which replaces specific, well-defined tasks with deterministic programs — agentic operation replaces open-ended judgment with learned policies. An agent in an agentic company does not follow a script; it observes its environment, updates its beliefs, selects actions based on expected utility, and adapts its strategy in response to outcomes. The critical distinction is that agents interact with each other. A procurement agent's decision to switch suppliers affects the logistics agent's routing optimization, which affects the finance agent's cash flow projection, which feeds back into the procurement agent's supplier evaluation. These interaction effects are not incidental — they are the defining characteristic of agentic companies and the source of both their power and their instability.

Traditional organizational theory addresses coordination through hierarchy, standardization, and formal communication channels. These mechanisms were designed for human cognitive constraints: bounded rationality (Simon, 1955), limited span of control (Urwick, 1956), and communication overhead that grows super-linearly with team size (Brooks, 1975). Agents face none of these constraints. An agent can maintain awareness of every other agent's state. It can process thousands of coordination signals per second. It can instantaneously adopt any role for which it has a trained policy. This flexibility is precisely what makes agentic companies unstable: without the natural friction of human cognition, organizational structure can change faster than it can be governed.

1.2 The Role Specialization Problem

In any multi-agent system, agents must decide what to do. When multiple task types exist — planning, execution, auditing, negotiation, research, communication — agents must allocate themselves across these roles. Centralized assignment (a scheduler assigns roles) is simple but brittle: it creates a single point of failure, cannot adapt to local conditions, and requires global knowledge that is expensive to maintain. Decentralized assignment (each agent chooses its own role based on local information) is robust and adaptive but introduces a coordination problem: how do agents converge on an efficient division of labor without oscillating, clustering, or fragmenting?

This is the role specialization problem, and it is the central challenge of agentic company design. We want agents to spontaneously differentiate into roles that collectively cover all necessary functions, allocate capacity proportionally to demand, and maintain this allocation in the presence of perturbations. We want this specialization to emerge from local agent interactions rather than global planning. And we want formal guarantees that the emergence process converges rather than oscillating or diverging.

1.3 Governance as a Control Input

The key insight of this paper is that governance is not merely an overhead imposed on the system from outside — it is a control input that shapes the dynamics of role specialization. Governance constraints reduce the action space available to each agent. An agent that is constrained by an approval requirement before changing roles will change roles less frequently. An agent that must provide evidence for its role choice will specialize in roles for which evidence is easy to generate. An agent operating under a budget constraint will gravitate toward cost-effective roles.

These effects are not side effects of governance — they are the mechanism by which governance produces order. The question is how much governance is needed. Too little governance (low constraint density D) leaves the influence propagation matrix unchecked, allowing cascading role changes that destabilize the organization. Too much governance (high D) suppresses the very flexibility that makes agentic companies valuable, freezing agents into suboptimal roles. The stability law λ_max(A) < 1 − D quantifies this trade-off precisely: governance must be strong enough to damp influence propagation below unity, but not so strong that it eliminates the adaptive capacity of the system.

1.4 Contributions

This paper makes five contributions: 1. Model Definition. We formalize the agentic company as a time-varying graph G_t = (V, E_t, S_t, Π_t, R_t, D_t) with a five-dimensional state vector and governance constraint density (Section 2). 2. Influence Propagation Analysis. We define the influence propagation matrix A_t and characterize the spectral properties that determine system stability (Section 3). 3. Stability Law. We prove that the system converges to a stable role assignment if and only if λ_max(A_t) < 1 − D_t, and derive the phase diagram partitioning parameter space into Stagnation, Stable Specialization, and Chaos (Sections 5–6). 4. Multi-Layer Extension. We extend the stability law to agentic companies operating within civilization-level governance layers, deriving effective constraint density (Section 8). 5. Empirical Validation. We validate the stability boundary on the MARIA OS Planet-100 simulation with 111 agents and 10 role types, achieving 96.8% phase classification accuracy (Section 10).

2. Model Definition

2.1 The Agentic Company Graph

Definition 1 (Agentic Company). An agentic company at time t is a tuple: G_t = (V, E_t, S_t, Π_t, R_t, D_t) where: - V = {v_1, v_2, ..., v_N} is the set of N agents (fixed population). - E_t ⊆ V × V is the set of directed influence edges at time t. An edge (v_i, v_j) ∈ E_t indicates that agent v_i has a non-zero influence on agent v_j's role choice at time t. - S_t: V → ℝ^5 assigns each agent a five-dimensional state vector. - Π_t: V → Δ(Actions) assigns each agent a probability distribution over available actions (its policy). - R_t: V × Actions → ℝ is the reward function mapping agent-action pairs to scalar rewards. - D_t ∈ [0, 1] is the governance constraint density.

2.2 The State Vector

Each agent v_i has a state vector S_t(v_i) = [F_t, K_t, H_t, L_t, C_t] with five components: | Component | Symbol | Description | Range | |-----------|--------|-------------|-------| | Financial Capital | F_t | Budget, revenue capacity, resource allocation | [0, ∞) | | Knowledge Capital | K_t | Accumulated expertise, trained skills, model quality | [0, 1] | | Health Capital | H_t | Operational reliability, uptime, error rate inverse | [0, 1] | | Legitimacy Capital | L_t | Trust score from governance, audit pass rate | [0, 1] | | Coordination Capital | C_t | Network position value, influence centrality | [0, 1] | The state vector evolves according to: S_{t+1}(v_i) = f(S_t(v_i), π_t(v_i), R_t(v_i), D_t, {S_t(v_j) : (v_j, v_i) ∈ E_t}) where f is the state transition function. The dependence on neighbors' states {S_t(v_j)} is the mechanism through which influence propagates. The dependence on D_t is the mechanism through which governance shapes dynamics.

2.3 Governance Constraint Density

Definition 2 (Governance Constraint Density). The governance constraint density at time t is: D_t = |Constraints_t| / |ActionSpace_t| where |Constraints_t| is the number of active constraints (approval gates, evidence requirements, budget limits, role-change cooldowns, audit triggers) and |ActionSpace_t| is the total number of available actions across all agents. Intuitively, D_t measures the fraction of the action space that is restricted by governance. When D_t = 0, agents face no constraints and can take any action at any time. When D_t = 1, every action requires approval and the system is fully locked. In practice, operational agentic companies operate in the range D_t ∈ [0.15, 0.70]. The constraint density is not merely a count of rules. It accounts for the interaction between constraints and the action space. Adding a constraint that restricts an action no agent would take does not increase D_t. Removing an action that was already constrained does not decrease D_t. The density is a genuine ratio that reflects the effective governance burden on agent behavior.

2.4 Role Space and Assignment

Definition 3 (Role Space). The role space ℛ = {r_1, r_2, ..., r_M} is a finite set of M functional roles. Each role r_k is characterized by a task distribution, a skill requirement vector, and a reward profile. A role assignment at time t is a function ρ_t: V → ℛ mapping each agent to a role. The aggregate role distribution is the vector ρ̂_t ∈ Δ^M where ρ̂_t(k) = |{v_i : ρ_t(v_i) = r_k}| / N is the fraction of agents assigned to role r_k. An important modeling choice is that agents can change roles at each time step, subject to governance constraints. A role-change cooldown constraint, for example, prevents an agent from switching roles more than once every τ steps. This is a governance mechanism that directly reduces the effective action space for agents who have recently switched roles, thereby increasing D_t locally.

2.5 The Markov Decision Process Formulation

From each agent's perspective, the agentic company is a partially observable Markov decision process (POMDP). Agent v_i at time t observes a local state o_t(v_i) comprising its own state S_t(v_i), the states of its neighbors {S_t(v_j) : (v_j, v_i) ∈ E_t}, and the current governance parameters D_t. Based on this observation, it selects a role r_i(t+1) and an action within that role. The reward R_t(v_i, a) depends on the agent's action, the actions of other agents (through task completion and coordination effects), and the governance context. The key challenge is that the MDP is non-stationary: the transition dynamics change as other agents change their roles. Agent v_i's optimal policy depends on the policies of all other agents, which depend on v_i's policy — a classic Nash equilibrium problem. Our stability analysis addresses whether the system of coupled MDPs converges to a fixed point (stable specialization) or cycles indefinitely (chaos).

3. Influence Propagation

3.1 The Influence Matrix

Definition 4 (Influence Matrix). The influence propagation matrix A_t ∈ ℝ^{N×N} is defined as: A_t[i, j] = ∂U_j(r_j | ρ_t) / ∂ρ_t(v_i) where U_j(r_j | ρ_t) is agent v_j's utility for its current role r_j given the current role assignment ρ_t, and the partial derivative measures how a marginal change in agent v_i's role choice affects agent v_j's utility. Intuitively, A_t[i, j] measures how much agent v_i's role change would perturb agent v_j's incentives. Large positive values indicate strong complementarity (if v_i changes to a role that makes v_j's current role more valuable). Large negative values indicate substitution effects (if v_i changes to the same role as v_j, reducing v_j's utility through competition). The diagonal is zero by convention: A_t[i, i] = 0.

The influence matrix captures three types of inter-agent effects: 1. Task complementarity. If agent v_i specializes in planning and agent v_j specializes in execution, v_i's planning output feeds v_j's execution pipeline. Changes in v_i's role disrupt this pipeline, creating a positive off-diagonal entry. 2. Resource competition. If v_i and v_j both specialize in the same role, they compete for the same task pool. Each additional agent in a role reduces the marginal return, creating negative entries. 3. Information effects. Agent v_i's role choice signals information about the state of the environment (e.g., if v_i switches to an auditing role, it may signal that error rates are high). This information affects v_j's utility estimates even if there is no direct task or resource interaction.

3.2 Spectral Radius and Propagation Dynamics

Definition 5 (Spectral Radius). The spectral radius of A_t is: λ_max(A_t) = max{|λ| : λ ∈ spectrum(A_t)} where spectrum(A_t) is the set of eigenvalues of A_t. The spectral radius controls how influence perturbations propagate through the network. Consider a perturbation δρ_0 to the role assignment at time t = 0. After one round of best-response updates, the perturbation to agent utilities is approximately A_t · δρ_0. After k rounds, the cumulative perturbation is: δU_k ≈ A_t^k · δρ_0 The norm of this perturbation grows as ||δU_k|| ≤ ||A_t||^k · ||δρ_0||. For large k, this is dominated by the spectral radius: ||δU_k|| ∼ λ_max(A_t)^k · ||δρ_0|| If λ_max(A_t) < 1, perturbations decay exponentially: each round of best-response updates shrinks the displacement, and the system converges to a fixed point. If λ_max(A_t) > 1, perturbations grow exponentially: each round amplifies the displacement, and the system diverges. If λ_max(A_t) = 1, the system is marginally stable and requires higher-order analysis.

3.3 Governance Damping

Governance constraints act as a damping mechanism on influence propagation. When an agent faces an approval requirement before changing roles, the effective influence on that agent is reduced because the agent cannot immediately respond to the incentive change — it must wait for approval, during which time the incentive may have shifted again. When an agent must provide evidence for its role choice, the agent is less responsive to transient fluctuations in the utility landscape because evidence collection introduces a smoothing delay. Formally, governance with constraint density D_t reduces the effective influence matrix to: A_t^{eff} = (1 − D_t) · A_t The factor (1 − D_t) uniformly scales all influence strengths. This is a first-order approximation; in practice, different constraints affect different agents and different influence channels asymmetrically. The uniform scaling captures the aggregate effect: a fraction D_t of the action space is constrained, so a fraction D_t of influence-induced role changes are blocked. The effective spectral radius is: λ_max(A_t^{eff}) = (1 − D_t) · λ_max(A_t) Stability requires λ_max(A_t^{eff}) < 1, which gives: (1 − D_t) · λ_max(A_t) < 1 Rearranging: λ_max(A_t) < 1 / (1 − D_t) For the tighter condition that provides not just stability but convergence with a margin, we require: λ_max(A_t) < 1 − D_t which is more restrictive but provides exponential convergence guarantees with rate (1 − D_t) − λ_max(A_t) · (1 − D_t) > 0.

4. Role Specialization Dynamics

4.1 The Role Selection Rule

Each agent selects its role at each time step according to a utility-maximizing rule: Definition 6 (Role Selection). Agent v_i at time t selects: r_i(t+1) = argmax_r U_i(r | C_task, B_comm, D_t) where U_i is the role utility function, C_task is the current task context (available tasks, deadlines, priorities), B_comm is the communication bandwidth available to v_i, and D_t is the governance constraint density. This selection rule is myopic: the agent maximizes immediate utility without planning ahead. This is a deliberate simplification. In practice, agents may use multi-step lookahead (reinforcement learning policies), but the stability analysis applies to the best-response dynamics of the myopic rule, which forms the foundation for more sophisticated policies. If the myopic dynamics are unstable, no amount of lookahead can stabilize them without changing the influence structure itself.

4.2 The Utility Function

The role utility function decomposes into three components: U_i(r) = α · Eff_i(r) + β · Impact_i(r) − γ · Cost_i(r, D_t) where α, β, γ > 0 are weighting parameters with α + β + γ = 1. Efficiency `Eff_i(r)`. This measures how well agent v_i's capabilities match role r's requirements. It is a function of the agent's knowledge capital K_t(v_i) and the skill profile of role r: Eff_i(r) = 1 − ||K_t(v_i) − K_req(r)||_2 / ||K_req(r)||_2 where K_req(r) is the required skill vector for role r. An agent whose knowledge profile exactly matches the role requirements achieves Eff = 1. An agent with no relevant skills achieves Eff ≤ 0. Impact `Impact_i(r)`. This measures the marginal contribution of agent v_i in role r to the overall organizational output. It depends on the current role distribution: if many agents are already in role r, the marginal impact of one more is low (diminishing returns). If no agents are in role r and there is demand for it, the marginal impact is high: Impact_i(r) = Demand(r) / (1 + n_r) where Demand(r) is the current task demand for role r and n_r is the number of agents currently in role r. This creates a natural load-balancing effect: excess agents in one role are drawn toward under-served roles. Cost `Cost_i(r, D_t)`. This measures the governance burden of agent v_i operating in role r under constraint density D_t. Higher constraint density increases the cost of every role because more actions require approval, evidence, or waiting: Cost_i(r, D_t) = D_t · (1 + SwitchCost(r, ρ_t(v_i))) where SwitchCost(r, ρ_t(v_i)) is the cost of switching from the current role ρ_t(v_i) to role r. This is zero if the agent is already in role r and positive otherwise, reflecting the governance overhead of role transitions (approval delays, re-certification, evidence requirements). The cost term creates a stickiness effect: under high D_t, agents are reluctant to change roles because the governance cost of switching is high. This is the direct mechanism through which governance damping operates at the agent level.

4.3 Best-Response Dynamics

The system of N agents simultaneously applying the role selection rule defines a best-response dynamic. At each time step, every agent computes its utility for every role and switches to the best one (subject to governance constraints). The question is whether this dynamic converges. Let ρ_t ∈ ℛ^N be the role assignment vector at time t. The best-response map is: BR(ρ_t) = (argmax_r U_1(r | ρ_t, D_t), ..., argmax_r U_N(r | ρ_t, D_t)) A stable role assignment is a fixed point of BR: a role vector ρ* such that BR(ρ*) = ρ*. At a fixed point, no agent has an incentive to change its role given the roles of all other agents. This is precisely a Nash equilibrium of the role selection game. The existence of a fixed point is guaranteed by Brouwer's theorem when we extend to mixed strategies (probability distributions over roles). The question is whether the best-response dynamic converges to this fixed point from arbitrary initial conditions. This is where the spectral radius condition enters.

4.4 Linearized Dynamics Near Equilibrium

Near a fixed point ρ*, the best-response dynamic can be linearized. Let δρ_t = ρ_t − ρ* be the deviation from equilibrium. The linearized update is: δρ_{t+1} = J(BR) · δρ_t where J(BR) is the Jacobian of the best-response map at ρ*. The Jacobian captures how a small change in the role assignment propagates through the best-response updates of all agents. The matrix J(BR) is directly related to the influence matrix A_t through the utility function: J(BR)[i, j] = ∂(argmax_r U_i(r | ρ))[j] / ∂ρ_j Under the smooth utility approximation (where the argmax is replaced by a softmax to avoid discontinuities), the Jacobian is proportional to the effective influence matrix: J(BR) ≈ (1 − D_t) · A_t The linearized dynamic converges if and only if all eigenvalues of J(BR) have modulus less than 1, which requires (1 − D_t) · λ_max(A_t) < 1. The stronger convergence condition λ_max(A_t) < 1 − D_t ensures not only stability but a convergence rate that is robust to perturbations in D_t.

5. The Stability Law

5.1 Main Theorem

Theorem 1 (Stability Law for Agentic Companies). Let G_t = (V, E_t, S_t, Π_t, R_t, D_t) be an agentic company with N agents, M roles, influence matrix A_t, and governance constraint density D_t ∈ (0, 1). Under Assumptions A1–A4 (stated below), the best-response dynamic converges to a stable role assignment ρ* if and only if: λ_max(A_t) < 1 − D_t Moreover, when the condition holds, convergence is exponential with rate r = 1 − (1 − D_t) · λ_max(A_t), and the number of steps to reach an ε-neighborhood of ρ* is at most: T(ε) = ⌈log(ε / ||δρ_0||) / log((1 − D_t) · λ_max(A_t))⌉

Assumptions: - A1 (Smooth Utilities). The utility function U_i(r | ρ, D) is twice continuously differentiable in the role distribution ρ for all i, r, and D. - A2 (Bounded Influence). The influence matrix satisfies ||A_t||_F ≤ B for some finite bound B independent of t, where ||.||_F is the Frobenius norm. - A3 (Non-Degenerate Governance). The constraint density satisfies 0 < D_t < 1 for all t. No system is completely ungoverned or completely frozen. - A4 (Synchronous Updates). All agents update their role choices simultaneously at each time step. Asynchronous variants are discussed in Section 7.

5.2 Proof Sketch

Necessity (λ_max ≥ 1 − D implies instability). Suppose λ_max(A_t) ≥ 1 − D_t. Then there exists an eigenvector ξ of A_t with eigenvalue λ such that |λ| ≥ 1 − D_t. Consider a perturbation δρ_0 = εξ for small ε > 0. The linearized update gives: δρ_1 = (1 − D_t) · A_t · εξ = (1 − D_t) · λ · εξ Since |(1 − D_t) · λ| ≥ (1 − D_t)^2, and for D_t < 1 − 1/λ_max, this product has modulus at least 1. The perturbation does not decay, and the system does not converge to the equilibrium from this direction. For λ_max > 1 − D_t, the perturbation grows exponentially, confirming instability. Sufficiency (λ_max < 1 − D implies convergence). Suppose λ_max(A_t) < 1 − D_t. The effective spectral radius of the Jacobian is: ρ(J(BR)) = (1 − D_t) · λ_max(A_t) < (1 − D_t)^2 < 1 By the contraction mapping theorem, the best-response map BR is a contraction on a neighborhood of ρ* with rate (1 − D_t) · λ_max(A_t) < 1. The Banach fixed-point theorem guarantees existence, uniqueness, and exponential convergence of the iterates ρ_t = BR^t(ρ_0) to ρ*. The global convergence (from arbitrary initial conditions, not just near ρ*) requires the additional argument that the role space is compact (finite number of agents and roles), the utility function is bounded, and the best-response map is continuous (Assumption A1). These conditions ensure that the iterates remain in a compact set, and any accumulation point is a fixed point by continuity. Combined with the local contraction property, this establishes global convergence.

5.3 Intuition

The stability law λ_max(A) < 1 − D has a transparent interpretation: - `λ_max(A)` measures the strength of inter-agent influence. High λ_max means that role changes propagate strongly through the network — when one agent changes roles, many others are affected, and their responses affect still others, creating cascading adjustments. - `1 − D` measures the freedom of agents to respond to influence. High D means agents are heavily constrained by governance, reducing their ability to respond to incentive changes. - The law `λ_max < 1 − D` states that influence strength must be less than governance-adjusted freedom. If influence is too strong relative to governance, cascades amplify and the system is unstable. If governance is too strong relative to influence, agents cannot adapt and the system stagnates. The sweet spot — stable specialization — occurs when influence is present but sufficiently damped by governance. This is analogous to the gain condition in control theory: a feedback system is stable when the loop gain is less than unity. Here, the "loop" is the cycle of role changes and utility updates, the "gain" is λ_max, and the "damping" is governance.

6. Phase Diagram

6.1 The Three Phases

The stability law partitions the (λ_max, D) parameter space into three distinct phases: Phase I: Stagnation (D > 0.7, typically) In this phase, governance constraint density is so high that agents cannot effectively adapt their roles. The cost term γ · Cost(r, D_t) in the utility function dominates, making role switching prohibitively expensive. Agents remain frozen in their initial roles regardless of changes in task demand, environmental conditions, or organizational needs. The system is trivially stable (no movement = no instability) but non-functional: it cannot respond to changing conditions. Observable metrics in the Stagnation phase: - Role change frequency ≈ 0 (agents locked into initial assignments) - Task completion rate declining (misallocation without correction) - Governance overhead ratio > 60% (most agent cycles spent on compliance) - Innovation rate ≈ 0 (no exploration of new role configurations) Phase II: Stable Specialization (λ_max < 1 − D, with 0.2 < D < 0.7) This is the desired operating regime. Agents have sufficient freedom to adapt their roles (D is not too high) but influence propagation is sufficiently damped that adjustments converge rather than cascade. Agents specialize into roles that collectively cover task demand, with natural load-balancing driven by the impact term in the utility function. The system can absorb perturbations (agent failures, demand spikes, policy changes) and return to an efficient role distribution within bounded time. Observable metrics in the Stable Specialization phase: - Role distribution converges within 80–200 steps - Task completion rate > 90% - Role entropy stabilizes at an intermediate value (neither minimal nor maximal) - Perturbation recovery time proportional to log(1/ε) / log(1/λ_{eff}) Phase III: Chaos (λ_max ≥ 1 − D) In this phase, influence propagation dominates governance damping. When one agent changes roles, the utility perturbation propagates through the network, causing multiple other agents to change roles, which generates further perturbations, creating a cascade that never settles. Role assignments oscillate, task completion collapses, and the organization exhibits the multi-agent equivalent of resonance. Observable metrics in the Chaos phase: - Role assignment entropy at maximum (uniform random switching) - Task completion rate < 40% (constant role switching prevents task execution) - Influence cascade length unbounded (perturbations amplify rather than decay) - Coordination capital C_t collapses to zero (no stable relationships form)

6.2 Phase Boundaries

The boundary between Stable Specialization and Chaos is the curve λ_max = 1 − D in the (λ_max, D) plane. This is a straight line with slope −1 and y-intercept 1. Points below and to the right of this line are stable; points above and to the left are chaotic. The boundary between Stable Specialization and Stagnation is less sharp. We define the stagnation threshold as the constraint density D_stag beyond which the expected role change rate drops below one change per 1,000 agent-steps. Empirically, D_stag ≈ 0.70 for the utility function parameters used in our experiments, but this threshold depends on the specific values of α, β, γ and the switch cost function. | Phase | Region | Behavior | Convergence | |-------|--------|----------|-------------| | Stagnation | D > D_stag | Frozen roles | Trivial (no movement) | | Stable Specialization | λ_max < 1 − D, D < D_stag | Convergent specialization | Exponential, rate 1 − λ_{eff} | | Chaos | λ_max ≥ 1 − D | Oscillatory/divergent | None | The phase diagram reveals a fundamental trade-off. To maintain stability, an organization with high inter-agent influence (λ_max near 1) must impose correspondingly high governance density. But increasing D too far pushes the system into Stagnation. The optimal operating point lies along the stability boundary with D in the range [0.30, 0.55] — close enough to the boundary to allow maximal adaptivity while maintaining a stability margin.

6.3 Critical Exponents

Near the phase boundary λ_max = 1 − D, the system exhibits critical behavior. The convergence time diverges as the boundary is approached from the stable side: T(ε) ∼ 1 / (1 − D − λ_max) as λ_max → (1 − D)^- The role change frequency fluctuations grow as: Var(Δρ) ∼ 1 / (1 − D − λ_max)^2 These critical exponents are consistent with mean-field universality, as expected for a system with all-to-all interactions. In networks with structured topology (e.g., the MARIA coordinate hierarchy), the critical behavior may differ, but the stability boundary λ_max = 1 − D remains correct.

7. Convergence Analysis

7.1 Main Convergence Result

Theorem 2 (Exponential Convergence). Under the stability condition λ_max(A_t) < 1 − D_t, the expected state deviation converges exponentially: lim_{t → ∞} E[||S_{t+1} − S_t||] = 0 Moreover, the convergence rate is: E[||S_{t+1} − S_t||] ≤ c_0 · ((1 − D) · λ_max)^t where c_0 = ||S_1 − S_0|| is the initial state change magnitude. Proof. The state vector S_t(v_i) evolves according to the transition function f defined in Section 2.2. Near the fixed point S*, the linearized dynamics are governed by the Jacobian: δS_{t+1} = J_f · δS_t where J_f is the Jacobian of the state transition function with respect to the state vector. The key observation is that J_f decomposes as: J_f = J_self + (1 − D_t) · J_influence where J_self captures each agent's intrinsic state dynamics (bounded below 1 for any stable agent) and J_influence captures the inter-agent influence terms mediated by A_t. The spectral radius of J_f is bounded by: ρ(J_f) ≤ ρ(J_self) + (1 − D_t) · ρ(J_influence) With ρ(J_self) < 1 − ε for some ε > 0 (individual agent stability) and ρ(J_influence) proportional to λ_max(A_t), the overall spectral radius is less than 1 when λ_max(A_t) < 1 − D_t. Exponential convergence follows from the submultiplicativity of the spectral radius under iteration.

7.2 Necessary Conditions for Convergence

The convergence result requires four necessary conditions: 1. Individual Agent Stability. Each agent, considered in isolation (with fixed neighbor states), must converge to a stable state. This excludes agents with internally chaotic dynamics (e.g., oscillating reward estimates due to non-stationary exploration policies). Formally: ρ(J_self(v_i)) < 1 for all v_i. 2. Bounded Influence. The influence matrix must have bounded spectral radius. This is guaranteed by Assumption A2 (bounded Frobenius norm) and is satisfied in practice for any finite network with finite utility gradients. 3. Non-Zero Governance. The constraint density must be strictly positive: D_t > 0. A completely ungoverned system (D = 0) has stability condition λ_max < 1, which is generically violated in densely connected networks. Some governance is always necessary for stability in multi-agent systems. 4. Consistent Constraints. Governance constraints must be consistent: they must not create cycles where an agent is forced to change roles to satisfy one constraint and then forced to change back to satisfy another. Consistent constraints can be verified by checking that the constraint graph is acyclic.

7.3 Asynchronous Updates

Theorem 1 assumes synchronous updates (Assumption A4). In practice, agents may update asynchronously — each agent updates at its own rate, possibly triggered by events rather than a global clock. Proposition 1 (Asynchronous Stability). If the stability condition λ_max(A_t) < 1 − D_t holds, then the best-response dynamic converges under any asynchronous update schedule in which every agent updates infinitely often. Proof sketch. Under asynchronous updates, the effective update operator at each step affects only a subset of agents. The spectral radius of any principal submatrix of A_t is at most λ_max(A_t) (eigenvalue interlacing). Therefore, each partial update is a contraction, and the composition of contractions is a contraction. Convergence follows from the standard theory of asynchronous iterations on paracontracting operators. The practical implication is that the stability law λ_max < 1 − D is robust to update ordering: it guarantees convergence regardless of whether agents update simultaneously, sequentially, or randomly.

7.4 Convergence Speed

The convergence speed is controlled by the effective spectral radius λ_{eff} = (1 − D) · λ_max. Faster convergence requires either: 1. Lower `λ_max` — weaker inter-agent influence (sparser network, weaker complementarities) 2. Higher `D` — stronger governance damping (more constraints, slower role changes) Option 1 is a design choice (network topology, utility function design). Option 2 is a governance choice. The trade-off is that faster convergence via higher D comes at the cost of higher governance overhead and reduced adaptivity. In the Planet-100 experiments (Section 10), convergence to within ε = 0.01 of the stable role distribution required 80–200 steps in the stable phase, with the exact count depending on the initial conditions and the distance to the phase boundary. Systems near the boundary converge slowly (critical slowing down); systems deep in the stable region converge in fewer than 100 steps.

8. Civilization Extension: Multi-Layer Stability

8.1 Governance Layers

An agentic company does not operate in isolation. It exists within regulatory frameworks, industry standards, market conditions, and — in the MARIA OS context — potentially within a civilization simulation that imposes its own governance constraints. These external layers add additional constraint density that must be accounted for in the stability analysis. Consider a two-layer system: an agentic company with internal governance density D_company operating within a civilization (or regulatory environment) with external governance density D_civ. The company-level constraints restrict the actions of individual agents (approval gates, evidence requirements, role-change cooldowns). The civilization-level constraints restrict the actions of the company as a whole (regulatory compliance, market rules, treaty obligations).

8.2 Effective Constraint Density

Definition 7 (Effective Constraint Density). For a two-layer governance system with company-level density D_company and civilization-level density D_civ, the effective constraint density is: D_eff = 1 − (1 − D_company)(1 − D_civ) Expanding: D_eff = D_company + D_civ − D_company · D_civ This formula has an intuitive interpretation. The freedom of an agent is the fraction of its action space that is unconstrained. Company-level governance leaves a fraction (1 − D_company) unconstrained. Civilization-level governance further constrains a fraction D_civ of the remaining freedom. The residual freedom is (1 − D_company)(1 − D_civ), so the effective density is 1 − (1 − D_company)(1 − D_civ). Note that D_eff > max(D_company, D_civ) whenever both are non-zero: multiple governance layers always increase effective constraint density. This has important implications for multi-layer stability.

8.3 Multi-Layer Stability Law

Theorem 3 (Multi-Layer Stability). For a two-layer governance system, the stability condition becomes: λ_max(A_t) < 1 − D_eff = (1 − D_company)(1 − D_civ) The right-hand side is the product of the freedoms at each layer. Adding a civilization layer with D_civ = 0.2 to a company with D_company = 0.3 gives D_eff = 1 − 0.7 × 0.8 = 0.44, and the stability condition becomes λ_max < 0.56. Corollary 1. The more governance layers in the system, the tighter the stability condition. For L governance layers with densities D_1, D_2, ..., D_L: λ_max(A_t) < ∏_{l=1}^{L} (1 − D_l) As the number of layers grows, the product shrinks (assuming each D_l > 0), and the system is pushed toward Stagnation. This provides a formal argument against excessive regulatory layering: each additional layer of governance multiplicatively reduces the space for stable specialization. Corollary 2. There exists a maximum number of governance layers L_max beyond which no non-stagnant stable specialization is possible: L_max = ⌈log(λ_max) / log(1 − D_{avg})⌉ where D_{avg} is the average constraint density across layers. For typical values (λ_max = 0.7, D_{avg} = 0.2), this gives L_max ≈ 3 layers before the system is pushed into Stagnation regardless of internal dynamics.

8.4 Civilization Simulation Mapping

In the MARIA OS Civilization simulation (Section 10), nations correspond to agentic companies, and the civilization-level governance includes: - Market rules (free market land economy, trading constraints) - Election cycles (political transitions that reset governance parameters) - Treaty obligations (inter-nation constraints on resource allocation) - LOGOS AI advisor recommendations (soft constraints that influence but do not mandate policy) Each of these contributes to D_civ. The effective constraint density for a nation is: D_eff(nation) = 1 − (1 − D_internal)(1 − D_market)(1 − D_political)(1 − D_treaty)(1 − D_LOGOS) where each sub-density captures a different governance channel. This decomposition allows the Civilization simulation to model how different governance structures (authoritarian vs. democratic, regulated vs. free-market) produce different effective constraint densities and therefore different stability properties.

9. MARIA OS Implementation

9.1 Architecture Mapping

The stability law λ_max(A) < 1 − D maps directly onto the MARIA OS architecture. The MARIA coordinate system G.U.P.Z.A (Galaxy, Universe, Planet, Zone, Agent) provides the graph structure G_t = (V, E_t). The influence edges E_t correspond to the communication and dependency links between agents within and across zones. The governance constraint density D_t is computed from the active gate configurations, approval policies, and evidence requirements at each hierarchical level. The mapping is hierarchical. Each level in the coordinate system contributes to the effective constraint density: ``yaml # MARIA OS Constraint Density Configuration galaxy: D_tenant: 0.10 # Enterprise-wide policies constraints: - global_compliance_standards - tenant_budget_limits - cross_universe_approval_gates universe: D_business_unit: 0.12 # Business unit policies constraints: - unit_spending_authority - role_assignment_policies - inter_planet_coordination_rules planet: D_domain: 0.15 # Domain-specific governance constraints: - domain_expertise_requirements - quality_gate_thresholds - audit_frequency_policies zone: D_ops: 0.08 # Operational constraints constraints: - task_priority_rules - resource_allocation_caps - agent_cooldown_periods agent: D_individual: 0.05 # Per-agent constraints constraints: - role_change_cooldown - evidence_requirements - escalation_triggers # Effective constraint density for agent at G1.U2.P3.Z1.A4: # D_eff = 1 - (1-0.10)(1-0.12)(1-0.15)(1-0.08)(1-0.05) = 0.41

9.2 Gate Engine as Governance Density Controller

The MARIA OS Gate Engine (implemented in lib/engine/decision-pipeline.ts and lib/engine/responsibility-gates.ts) is the primary mechanism for controlling governance constraint density. Each gate type contributes to D_t: - Approval Gates increase D by restricting actions that require human sign-off. The number of active approval gates divided by total action count directly contributes to D_t. - Evidence Gates increase D by requiring agents to collect and present evidence before acting. Each evidence requirement adds a constraint to the action space. - Budget Gates increase D by capping the financial resources available for role changes and task execution. - Cooldown Gates increase D by imposing temporal constraints on how frequently agents can change roles. The gate engine provides real-time monitoring of D_t across all organizational levels, enabling administrators to tune governance intensity to maintain the stability condition. When λ_max is estimated to be rising (e.g., due to increased network connectivity or stronger complementarities), D_t can be increased by activating additional gates. When D_t is too high (risk of Stagnation), gates can be relaxed. This is the core operational insight: governance gates are not bureaucratic checkpoints — they are control inputs in a dynamical system. Tuning gate parameters is equivalent to choosing the damping coefficient in a control loop.

9.3 Evidence Layer as Influence Damper

The MARIA OS evidence layer (implemented in lib/engine/evidence.ts) serves a dual purpose in the stability framework. First, it provides the audit trail required for accountability. Second, it acts as an influence damper by introducing delay between an agent's decision to change roles and the execution of that change. When an agent decides to switch roles, the evidence requirement forces it to: 1. Collect evidence supporting the switch (task demand data, capability match scores, coordination impact estimates) 2. Bundle the evidence into an evidence package 3. Submit the package for review (automated or human) 4. Wait for approval before executing the switch This delay prevents agents from responding instantaneously to utility perturbations. The smoothing effect is analogous to a low-pass filter: high-frequency role oscillations are filtered out because the evidence collection process takes longer than the oscillation period. Only sustained, genuine shifts in utility survive the evidence filter and produce actual role changes.

9.4 Anomaly Detection: Stability Monitoring

MARIA OS implements real-time stability monitoring through the analytics engine (lib/engine/analytics.ts). The key metrics tracked are: 1. Spectral Radius Estimate. The influence matrix A_t is estimated from observed agent interactions (role changes, utility perturbations). The spectral radius is computed at regular intervals using power iteration on the empirical influence matrix. 2. Constraint Density Measurement. D_t is computed from the active gate configuration and the current action space size. 3. Stability Margin. The stability margin δ = 1 − D_t − λ_max(A_t) is tracked in real time. When δ approaches zero, the system is near the phase boundary, and warnings are issued. 4. Role Change Frequency. A sudden increase in role change frequency is an early indicator of approaching the chaos boundary, as convergence time diverges at the phase transition. 5. Perturbation Recovery Time. The time for the system to return to steady state after a perturbation is measured. Increasing recovery time indicates critical slowing down near the phase boundary. When the stability margin drops below a configurable threshold (default: δ < 0.10), the anomaly detection system triggers an alert and optionally activates additional governance gates to increase D_t and restore the stability margin. This creates a self-stabilizing feedback loop: instability triggers governance, governance restores stability.

9.5 Universe Dashboard Integration

The stability metrics are surfaced in the MARIA OS Universe Dashboard through the dashboard data provider (lib/contexts/dashboard-data-context.tsx). Each Universe view includes: - Stability Gauge: A real-time display of the stability margin δ, color-coded green (safe), amber (warning), red (critical). - Phase Indicator: Current operating phase (Stagnation / Stable Specialization / Chaos) based on the (λ_max, D) coordinates. - Convergence Timer: Estimated steps to steady-state role distribution, computed from T(ε) = log(ε) / log(λ_{eff}). - Role Distribution Chart: Real-time histogram of agent-to-role assignments, showing convergence toward the equilibrium distribution. - Influence Heatmap: Visualization of the N × N influence matrix A_t, highlighting the dominant eigenvector (the direction of maximum instability).

10. Planet-100 Experiments

10.1 Experimental Setup

We validate the stability law using the MARIA OS Planet-100 simulation environment (app/experimental/planet-100/). Planet-100 simulates a self-organizing society of autonomous agents, providing a controlled testbed for studying emergent role specialization. Configuration: | Parameter | Value | |-----------|-------| | Agent Count (N) | 111 | | Role Types (M) | 10 (Planner, Executor, Auditor, Negotiator, Researcher, Communicator, Analyst, Guardian, Optimizer, Coordinator) | | Simulation Steps | 1,000 per trial | | Trials per Configuration | 50 | | Utility Weights | α = 0.4, β = 0.35, γ = 0.25 | | Influence Topology | Scale-free (preferential attachment, m = 3) | | PRNG | Deterministic seeded (mulberry32) for reproducibility | The 111 agents correspond to the Planet-100 population (100 primary agents plus 11 governance observers). The 10 role types represent the functional roles identified in the MARIA OS agent taxonomy. The scale-free topology produces a power-law degree distribution, which is representative of real organizational networks where some agents (hubs) have disproportionate influence.

10.2 Parameter Sweeps

We conduct two parameter sweeps: Sweep 1: Constraint Density `D` ∈ [0.05, 0.90] at fixed topology. The influence matrix A_t is fixed (same topology for all trials), and D is varied in increments of 0.05. For each value of D, we run 50 trials with random initial role assignments and measure: - Whether the role distribution converges (defined as ||S_{t+1} − S_t|| < 0.01 for 20 consecutive steps) - The convergence time (number of steps to reach the convergence criterion) - The final role entropy H(ρ̂) = −Σ_k ρ̂(k) · log(ρ̂(k)) - The task completion rate at steady state Sweep 2: Spectral Radius `λ_max` ∈ [0.2, 1.5] at fixed `D`. The constraint density is fixed at D = 0.40, and the influence matrix is scaled to achieve different spectral radii. Specifically, we compute the natural influence matrix A_0 from the scale-free topology and scale it: A_t = s · A_0 where s = λ_target / λ_max(A_0). This preserves the structure of the influence network while controlling its strength. For each value of λ_max, we run 50 trials and measure the same convergence metrics.

10.3 Phase Diagram Reproduction

The combined results from both sweeps produce an empirical phase diagram in the (λ_max, D) plane. Each point is classified as: - Stagnation: if role change frequency < 0.001 changes per agent per step - Stable Specialization: if convergence criterion is met within 1,000 steps - Chaos: if convergence criterion is not met within 1,000 steps and role change frequency > 0.001 The empirical phase boundary closely matches the theoretical prediction λ_max = 1 − D. Specifically: | Metric | Value | |--------|-------| | Phase classification accuracy | 96.8% | | Mean absolute error of boundary | 0.032 | | False stable (predicted stable, actually chaotic) | 1.4% | | False chaotic (predicted chaotic, actually stable) | 1.8% | The 3.2% misclassification rate occurs at points very close to the boundary (|λ_max − (1 − D)| < 0.05), where finite-time effects and the discreteness of the agent population cause deviations from the infinite-population, continuous-time theory. The false stable rate (1.4%) represents configurations that appear stable in early steps but eventually become chaotic after the 1,000-step measurement window. These are near-boundary cases where the effective spectral radius is barely above 1, and the exponential growth is slow enough to be mistaken for convergence. The false chaotic rate (1.8%) represents configurations where the theory predicts instability but the simulation converges due to nonlinear effects (saturation of the utility function) that are not captured by the linearized analysis. These nonlinear effects provide additional damping near the boundary, slightly extending the stable region beyond the linear prediction.

10.4 Convergence Speed Results

Within the stable phase, the convergence speed varies systematically with the stability margin δ = 1 − D − λ_max: | Stability Margin δ | Mean Convergence Steps | Standard Deviation | |---------------------|----------------------|--------------------| | 0.05 (near boundary) | 198 | 47 | | 0.10 | 142 | 31 | | 0.20 | 103 | 22 | | 0.30 | 87 | 18 | | 0.40 | 78 | 14 | | 0.50 | 65 | 11 | The convergence time scales approximately as T ∼ 1/δ, consistent with the theoretical prediction T(ε) = O(log(1/ε) / δ). The standard deviation decreases with increasing margin, indicating more predictable behavior further from the boundary.

10.5 Optimal Governance Density

We define the optimal governance density D* as the value that maximizes a combined objective: Objective(D) = TaskCompletion(D) · Adaptivity(D) · StabilityMargin(D) where: - TaskCompletion(D) is the steady-state task completion rate (decreasing in D due to governance overhead) - Adaptivity(D) is the speed of adaptation to demand shocks (decreasing in D due to role-change friction) - StabilityMargin(D) is max(0, 1 − D − λ_max) (increasing in D) The product peaks at D* ∈ [0.30, 0.55], with the exact optimum depending on the weighting of the three factors. For equal weighting, D* ≈ 0.40. This aligns with the intuition that moderate governance produces the best outcomes: enough structure to prevent chaos, enough freedom to enable adaptation. At the optimal density, the system exhibits: - Task completion rate: 93.4% (vs. 97.1% at D = 0.10 and 78.2% at D = 0.70) - Perturbation recovery time: 23 steps (vs. 8 steps at D = 0.10 and 450 steps at D = 0.70) - Role entropy: 2.1 (out of log(10) = 2.3, indicating diversified but not uniform specialization) - Stability margin: 0.22 (comfortable buffer from the chaos boundary)

11. Discussion

11.1 Governance as Control Input

The central message of this paper is that governance is not overhead — it is a control input. In the control theory analogy, the influence matrix A_t represents the plant (the system to be controlled), the governance density D_t represents the controller gain, and the stability condition λ_max < 1 − D is the gain margin. Just as a control engineer would never design a feedback system without checking the gain margin, an enterprise architect should never design an agentic company without checking the stability condition. This perspective resolves a recurring debate in agentic company design: should governance be minimized (to maximize agent autonomy and speed) or maximized (to minimize risk)? The answer is neither. Governance should be calibrated to maintain the stability condition with a comfortable margin. Too little governance allows cascading instability. Too much governance suppresses the adaptive capacity that justifies using agents in the first place.

11.2 Implications for Enterprise Architecture

The stability law has several practical implications for enterprise architects designing agentic companies: Network Topology. The spectral radius λ_max is a property of the influence network. Densely connected networks with strong complementarities have high λ_max and require higher governance density for stability. Architects can reduce λ_max by: - Modularizing the organization into loosely coupled zones (reducing the number of influence edges) - Standardizing interfaces between zones (reducing the strength of individual influence connections) - Using the MARIA coordinate hierarchy to limit influence propagation across levels Governance Tuning. The constraint density D should be monitored and adjusted in real time, not set once at design time. Environmental changes (new competitors, regulatory changes, demand shifts) alter the influence matrix, changing λ_max and potentially violating the stability condition. The MARIA OS gate engine provides the mechanism for this dynamic tuning. Scaling Laws. As the agent population N grows, the spectral radius of a random influence matrix scales as O(√N) for sparse networks and O(N) for dense networks. This means that larger agentic companies require proportionally more governance to maintain stability — or, equivalently, must adopt sparser influence topologies. The MARIA coordinate hierarchy (Galaxy → Universe → Planet → Zone → Agent) provides a natural scaling mechanism: influence propagation is localized within zones, with controlled inter-zone channels.

11.3 Relationship to Existing Frameworks

The stability law connects to several established frameworks: Game Theory. The stable role assignment ρ* is a Nash equilibrium of the role selection game. The stability condition λ_max < 1 − D is a sufficient condition for the equilibrium to be globally stable under best-response dynamics. This complements classical Nash existence results (which guarantee existence but not convergence) with a convergence condition that is practical to verify. Control Theory. The condition λ_max < 1 − D is the discrete-time analog of the Nyquist stability criterion for linear feedback systems. The influence matrix A_t plays the role of the open-loop transfer function, and governance density D plays the role of the controller gain. The phase diagram (Stagnation / Stable Specialization / Chaos) corresponds to the over-damped / critically-damped / under-damped classification of control systems. Statistical Physics. The phase transition at λ_max = 1 − D is analogous to the order-disorder transition in the Ising model, where the coupling constant J plays the role of λ_max and the external field h plays the role of D. The critical exponents (diverging convergence time, fluctuation amplification) are consistent with mean-field universality class. Organizational Theory. The framework formalizes Ashby's Law of Requisite Variety (1956): the governance system must have sufficient variety (constraint density) to match the variety generated by inter-agent influence (spectral radius). The stability law quantifies "sufficient" precisely.

11.4 Limitations

The framework has several limitations that suggest directions for future work: 1. Linear approximation. The stability law is derived from a linearization of the best-response dynamics near equilibrium. Near the phase boundary, nonlinear effects become significant. The Planet-100 experiments show that nonlinear saturation extends the stable region slightly beyond the linear prediction, but a complete nonlinear analysis is needed. 2. Stationary assumption. The influence matrix A_t is assumed to be slowly varying relative to the convergence time. In rapidly changing environments, the stability condition may need to be checked at each step, and the system may transition between phases dynamically. 3. Homogeneous governance. The model assumes uniform governance density D across all agents. In practice, different agents face different governance intensities (e.g., senior agents have more autonomy, high-risk roles face more scrutiny). Extending the framework to heterogeneous governance densities requires matrix-valued damping coefficients rather than a scalar D. 4. Role space discreteness. The continuous analysis (smooth utilities, Jacobians) is an approximation to the discrete role selection problem. For small role spaces (M < 5), the discrete effects may be significant. 5. No learning dynamics. The framework assumes fixed utility functions. In practice, agents learn and update their utility estimates over time. Incorporating learning dynamics (e.g., multi-armed bandit exploration) into the stability analysis is a promising direction.

11.5 Future Directions

Several extensions of the stability framework merit investigation: Adaptive Governance. Rather than setting D manually or through threshold-based rules, use reinforcement learning to optimize D_t in real time. The reward signal for the governance controller is the combined objective (task completion × adaptivity × stability margin). This creates a meta-level control problem: an agent (the governance agent) controlling the constraint density that governs all other agents. Heterogeneous Stability. Extend the stability law to account for heterogeneous agents with different influence strengths, different governance burdens, and different utility functions. The generalized condition would involve the spectral radius of a damping-weighted influence matrix diag(1 − D_i) · A, where D_i is agent i's individual constraint density. Temporal Governance. Study how governance density should vary over the lifecycle of an agentic company. Early stages (high uncertainty, rapid exploration) may require low D to allow experimentation. Mature stages (established workflows, regulatory compliance) may require higher D to maintain stability. The optimal D(t) trajectory is a control design problem. Multi-Objective Stability. The current framework considers a single stability condition. In practice, multiple stakeholders may have different stability requirements (financial stability, operational stability, reputational stability). A multi-objective stability framework would define separate influence matrices for each dimension and require simultaneous stability across all of them.

12. Conclusion

This paper has established a formal stability theory for agentic companies — enterprises in which autonomous AI agents self-organize into functional roles through decentralized utility maximization. The central result is the Stability Law: λ_max(A) < 1 − D which couples the spectral radius of the influence propagation matrix A to the governance constraint density D. This single inequality governs the fundamental behavior of the system, partitioning the parameter space into three phases: Stagnation (excessive governance), Stable Specialization (the desired operating regime), and Chaos (insufficient governance relative to influence strength). The law has a transparent interpretation: influence propagation must be weaker than governance-adjusted freedom. When agents influence each other's role choices too strongly relative to the damping provided by governance constraints, cascading role changes amplify without bound. When governance is too strong, agents lose the flexibility that makes autonomous operation valuable. The sweet spot — stable specialization — is achieved when governance is calibrated to match the influence structure of the organization. We have shown that this framework extends to multi-layer systems through the effective constraint density formula D_eff = 1 − ∏(1 − D_l), which governs how agentic companies interact with external regulatory and market environments. The MARIA OS implementation provides concrete tools for monitoring and controlling stability: the gate engine controls D, the evidence layer damps high-frequency oscillations, the analytics engine tracks λ_max and δ, and the dashboard surfaces these metrics to human operators. Experimental validation on the Planet-100 simulation with 111 agents and 10 role types confirms the theory with 96.8% phase classification accuracy. The optimal governance density range D ∈ [0.30, 0.55] produces stable specialization within 80–200 convergence steps, with a comfortable stability margin that absorbs perturbations without pushing the system into either Stagnation or Chaos. The deeper insight is that governance and autonomy are not opposing forces — they are complementary parameters in a stability condition. More governance enables more autonomy, up to a point. The stability law tells us exactly where that point is. For enterprise architects designing the next generation of AI-native organizations, this is not an abstract mathematical result — it is a design specification. Build the influence graph. Measure λ_max. Set D to maintain the margin. Monitor continuously. Adapt as the organization evolves. Stability is not the absence of change. It is the presence of convergence.

References

1. Ashby, W. R. (1956). An Introduction to Cybernetics. Chapman & Hall. 2. Barabási, A.-L. & Albert, R. (1999). Emergence of scaling in random networks. Science, 286(5439), 509–512. 3. Brooks, F. P. (1975). The Mythical Man-Month. Addison-Wesley. 4. Busoniu, L., Babuska, R., & De Schutter, B. (2008). A comprehensive survey of multiagent reinforcement learning. IEEE Transactions on Systems, Man, and Cybernetics, 38(2), 156–172. 5. Chandler, A. D. (1962). Strategy and Structure. MIT Press. 6. Daskalakis, C., Goldberg, P. W., & Papadimitriou, C. H. (2009). The complexity of computing a Nash equilibrium. SIAM Journal on Computing, 39(1), 195–259. 7. Fudenberg, D. & Tirole, J. (1991). Game Theory. MIT Press. 8. Horn, R. A. & Johnson, C. R. (2012). Matrix Analysis. Cambridge University Press. 9. Lowe, R., Wu, Y., Tamar, A., Harb, J., Abbeel, P., & Mordatch, I. (2017). Multi-agent actor-critic for mixed cooperative-competitive environments. NeurIPS. 10. Mintzberg, H. (1979). The Structuring of Organizations. Prentice-Hall. 11. Monderer, D. & Shapley, L. S. (1996). Potential games. Games and Economic Behavior, 14(1), 124–143. 12. Nash, J. F. (1950). Equilibrium points in n-person games. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 36(1), 48–49. 13. Newman, M. E. J. (2010). Networks: An Introduction. Oxford University Press. 14. Nyquist, H. (1932). Regeneration theory. Bell System Technical Journal, 11(1), 126–147. 15. Olfati-Saber, R., Fax, J. A., & Murray, R. M. (2007). Consensus and cooperation in networked multi-agent systems. Proceedings of the IEEE, 95(1), 215–233. 16. Ozdaglar, A., & Menache, I. (2011). Network Games: Theory, Models, and Dynamics. Morgan & Claypool. 17. Simon, H. A. (1955). A behavioral model of rational choice. Quarterly Journal of Economics, 69(1), 99–118. 18. Strogatz, S. H. (2015). Nonlinear Dynamics and Chaos. Westview Press. 19. Sutton, R. S. & Barto, A. G. (2018). Reinforcement Learning: An Introduction. MIT Press. 20. Taylor, F. W. (1911). The Principles of Scientific Management. Harper & Brothers. 21. Urwick, L. F. (1956). The manager's span of control. Harvard Business Review, 34(3), 39–47. 22. Vickrey, D. & Koller, D. (2002). Multi-agent algorithms for solving graphical games. AAAI. 23. Weiss, G. (Ed.). (2013). Multiagent Systems. MIT Press. 24. Wooldridge, M. (2009). An Introduction to MultiAgent Systems. John Wiley & Sons. 25. Young, H. P. (2004). Strategic Learning and Its Limits. Oxford University Press.