The three-axis structural language of Decision Audit
Alignment measures whether the evidence assembly supports a coherent, unified objective. When layers are aligned, they reinforce each other — each layer's conclusion is compatible with the others. When layers are misaligned, they pull the decision in incompatible directions, even if each layer is internally valid.
Alignment is not agreement. Two layers can reach different conclusions and still be aligned — if those conclusions are compatible within the decision context. Alignment fails when success conditions for one layer require the failure of another.
Tension measures the degree of structural conflict between evidence layers. It is not merely disagreement or uncertainty — it is incompatibility. Two layers are in tension when accepting one requires rejecting the premise of another.
Tension is scored inversely: high tension score means low structural conflict. A score of 100 indicates no structural contradiction. A score approaching zero indicates a fundamental contradiction that cannot be resolved without changing the decision premise.
Convergence measures whether the decision structure stabilizes toward a clear, executable conclusion across evaluated scenarios. A convergent decision holds under variation — changing one assumption does not collapse the entire structure. A divergent decision is fragile — its validity depends on a narrow set of conditions.
Convergence is the temporal dimension of TAC. While Alignment asks about the current state of the evidence assembly, Convergence asks whether that assembly will remain structurally sound as the decision moves toward execution.
The default weighting prioritizes Alignment (0.40) as the most fundamental structural requirement, followed by Tension (0.35) as the most common source of decision failure, and Convergence (0.25) for cross-scenario stability. Domain-adjusted implementations may declare alternative coefficient sets.