The Coherence Programme: A Conceptual Overview and Entry Point to the Research Programme

A map of how institutions stay aligned—or drift—over time. Why do institutions that begin aligned gradually drift? This paper introduces the Coherence Programme, which studies how intent changes as it is translated through decision systems. It presents the Operating Spine—the structure linking purpose to strategy, portfolio decisions, and signals—and shows how translation across this architecture produces alignment or drift. This paper provides the conceptual entry point to that process. About the Coherence ProgrammeThe Coherence Programme studies why institutions drift despite appearing aligned. It shows that decisions are made not on intent itself, but on how intent is translated into criteria, metrics, and allocation rules. Using the Operating Spine, the programme traces how purpose becomes action across governance layers, making drift and coherence directly observable within decision systems. The research applies to public institutions, capital allocation, and AI-mediated environments, where the durability of decision rules determines long-term institutional reliability.Programme citation: Mertens, R. E. U. (2026). The Coherence Programme: A Conceptual Overview and Entry Point to the Research Programme. Resources: Coherence Programme OSF repository and https://thecoherenceprogramme.org Version 1.00: This is the first public release of the programme entry point and conceptual overview.Version 1.01: Minor editorial revision improving figure placement, layout, and sentence clarity. Adds a small illustrative translation trace and improves readability. No changes to the conceptual framework or programme structure.Version 1.02: Minor revision clarifying the programme’s theoretical grounding and reference to the conceptual foundation paper (The Coherence Problem: How Institutions Learn, Drift, and Realign).Version 1.03: Minor editorial revision in presentation and readability improvements. Version 1.04: This version refines conceptual precision, standardises the intervenability claim across sections, and clarifies translation interfaces (including review processes) as the structurally valid loci of diagnosis and correction. Minor edits improve consistency, alignment between figures and claims, and overall readability without altering the core framework or empirical commitments.Version 1.05: Minor conceptual clarifications, consistency improvements, reviewer-informed refinements, and editorial updates across the programme.