Imbalance Score Model

A disciplined way to measure how far the Triangle has drifted—and where correction must land first.

Technology scales quickly. Human behavior adapts slowly. Governance adapts last.

The Imbalance Score turns that reality into an operational tool: a repeatable method for evaluating risk, ownership, and control urgency.

This model is used across Balance the Triangle work to keep analysis grounded in one question:

Where is the gap widest—and what must be made provable next?

What the score is (and what it is not)

The Imbalance Score is a systems risk indicator, not a moral verdict.It does three things:

1. Forces a clear read on which domain is running ahead

2. Makes “hand-wavy concern” measurable

3. Points directly to the control family likely to reduce risk (Verification / Counterweights / Correction Loops)

The Triangle (what you’re scoring)

Science & Technology

• Capability is scaling.

Human Behavior & Incentives

• We optimize for belonging, status, and short-term reward.

Ethics & Governance

• Rules, oversight, and legitimacy adapt last.

The score reflects the distance between these domains in a given story, system, or decision.

How the Imbalance Score works

Every assessment produces:Lead Domain: which corner is outpacing the others (Science/Tech, Human, or Ethics/Gov)

Domain Gap Scores: quick 0–10 ratings for each corner’s readiness vs the moment

Imbalance Score (0–10): the overall risk created by the gapRisk Level: low / moderate / high / severe

Primary Pattern (optional): Verification Gap, Control Lag, Dependency Trap, etc.

Next Control Move: the minimum control set that can reduce risk now

If you can’t tie the score to a control move, the score is noise.

Scoring rubric (0–10 for each domain)

Use “readiness under pressure” as the rule.

Science & Technology score

• Higher = faster scaling, wider blast radius, lower friction to deploy

0–10: capability maturity and deployment velocity

Human Behavior score

0–10: incentives, norms, and predictable behavior under pressure

• Higher = stronger alignment, lower drift pressure, healthier truth flow

Ethics & Governance score

0–10: enforceable constraints, oversight independence, legitimacy

• Higher = real counterweights, enforceable boundaries, functioning correction loops

Important: A “high” score is not “good.” It means high force at that corner—high capability, high incentive pressure, or high constraint capacity.

Risk Levels (Imbalance Score)

Use these bands consistently:

• 0.0–2.9 (Low): manageable drift; routine correction works
• 3.0–4.9 (Moderate): emerging gaps; controls need tightening
• 5.0–6.9 (High): drift is active; expect failure without intervention
• 7.0–10 (Severe): correction is now expensive; crisis is the likely auditor

What to do with the score (the only point)

Map score → action:

If Science/Tech is leading

You need Verification first: prove permissions, behavior, provenance.

If Human is leading (incentives / status / belonging)

You need Counterweights and truth-flow controls: protect dissent, reduce retaliation, separate duties.

If Ethics/Gov is leading (constraints tightening)

You need Correction Loops that prevent backlash cycles: routine review, measurable compliance, transparent enforcement.

Use it with Patterns and Six Depths

The score tells you how wide the gap is.Patterns tell you how drift is happening.

Six Depths tells you where the failure is emerging and spreading.

Used together, the workflow becomes:

Signal → Score → Pattern → Depth → Minimum Controls → Proof

Where you’ll see the Imbalance Score

Daily Brief

Each Brief includes a score to keep urgency and action grounded.

Field Notes

Each case uses the score to distinguish FAIL vs INCONCLUSIVE vs PASSED under pressure.

SpiralWatch

The score becomes a deployment and governance input: when imbalance is severe, fail-closed controls must intensify

Closing

The Triangle will always be imbalanced. That’s physics.

The Imbalance Score is how we make that choice explicit.