Compliance versus coherence names one of the most consequential things a thin-interiority ecology can no longer tell apart. A participant can obey the visible arrangement while inwardly withdrawing, despairing, disagreeing, imagining exit, or quietly forming another worldview — externally compliant, internally no longer living in the same reality as the form they comply with. Where there is no legitimate channel for that interior state to surface, the field reads the quiet as agreement.
That error is expensive over time, because it lets a system mistake successful management for genuine consent and run for years on a legitimacy it does not actually hold. It is why a framework concerned with whether a form still corresponds to reality needs interiority as a live function rather than a courtesy: coherence is the form and the lived reality still matching; compliance is only the appearance of it. The mechanism underneath is the distributed sensing layer, and its loss is what makes the difference invisible.