Browse by subject:
Paper Summaries/Board capture and the decision record: why the DA record survives the capture objection
Paper #1000
Board capture and the decision record: why the DA record survives the capture objection
The paper defends the Decision Accountability (DA) record against the capture objection from the managerial-power tradition. It argues that while disclosure-only governance can be captured, the DA record survives when implemented as a verification architecture with named fields, costly-to-fake specificity, the Stranger Test, Gaming Signature Index, and automatic audit triggers. The paper formalizes the captured disclosure game and provides design conditions for capture resistance.
Reading welfare beta
Welfare beta, written as βW and pronounced beta W, means annual system-welfare loss divided by annual industry revenue, written as Π and pronounced capital pi. Revenue is the denominator, never profit; ΔW and Π must use the same domain, same time period, and same activity boundary. See the welfare-beta methodology manual.
OPEN HTML DECK ↗Deck mode is an on-site reading view, not a PowerPoint download.
Theorem status: evidence-traced claim under the cited paper's assumptionsFalsification: show the same game preserving system welfare without changing the payoff structure
KEY FINDINGS
THEOREM
Hollow Win Risk = βW + Π_local - Σ_system - A - F, where βW is expected system-welfare burden, Π_local is local payoff, Σ_system is recorded system benefits/costs, A is accountability cost, and F is falsification risk.
PLAIN ENGLISH
A decision is a Hollow Win if the local payoff to insiders exceeds the system-welfare costs that are not recorded. The DA record makes these costs visible and testable.
EVIDENCE & LIMITATIONS
- Theorem status: evidence-traced claim under the cited paper's assumptions
- Falsification: show the same game preserving system welfare without changing the payoff structure
REFERENCES / CITATION STATUS
References section
Detected
Bibliography entries
219
In-text citations
0
Unique citations
121
Footnote markers
0
Citation year span
1521-2026
Source hash
a5595dbc418e
This page reports reference counts measured directly from the manuscript. Full reference entries render only when a curated source chapter carries a public References, Bibliography, Source Notes, Supplemental Reference Archive, Footnotes, or Source-Grounding Ledger section. The site does not synthesize citation entries. Literature-claim verification status: not evaluated.
Loading curated reference section…
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
The strongest objection to Decision Accounting in corporate governance comes from the managerial-power tradition: boards and managers capture governance tools. If compensation disclosure, say-on-pay, independent-director rules, and gatekeeper review can be turned into insider-protective procedure, a Decision Accountability record may become another drafted artifact that protects the very actors it is meant to discipline. The objection is correct about disclosure-only governance. It fails against the DA record when the record is implemented as a verification architecture rather than a narrative disclosure. The relevant flawed game is the captured disclosure game; the bad equilibrium is compliant opacity, in which insiders satisfy formal record duties while preserving control over drafting, timing, interpretation, and enforcement triggers. The DA record changes that game through named fields, costly-to-fake specificity, system-welfare accounting, the Stranger Test, the Gaming Signature Index, and automatic audit triggers. The central proposition is simple: where a governance tool makes insiders disclose reasons, capture remains cheap; where it forces a pre-decision record whose falsification conditions are reviewable by actors outside the captured drafting chain, capture becomes probabilistic, costly, and testable. The claim is falsifiable. If DA adoption produces persistent boilerplate, weak audit activation, no measurable improvement in decision quality, and continued substitution of revenue extraction for system welfare, the capture-resistance claim fails. The result is not faith in boards. It is a design rule for governing captured boards: do not ask insiders to explain themselves after the fact; make them create records that strangers, auditors, and future evidence can test.
METHODOLOGY
The paper uses game-theoretic analysis to formalize the captured disclosure game and identify the bad equilibrium of compliant opacity. It then derives design conditions for the DA record based on the Missing System Theory and canon principles. The argument is theoretical, with falsification tests proposed for empirical validation.
SOURCE QUESTIONS
SSRN not yet postedDeck ↗
WHY THIS MATTERS
For the economist
A structural claim about when bilateral optimization degrades the shared system. Read the formal statement and its stated axioms.
For the regulator
The constraint is physical or biological, so disclosure alone will not internalize it. The policy lever is to bound exposure, not to price it away.
For the executive
This is where a privately efficient decision can degrade the system the business depends on. The governance question is which decision records would make that system cost visible before it is normalized.
For the teacher
An on-site HTML deck and the expanded curriculum cover the argument, the evidence, and the measurement. Use the deck as a self-contained class session, then route deeper through the 45-50h core course or 100+h full curriculum.
For the affected community
In plain terms: who gains from the current arrangement, who pays for it, and what rule change would alter that split. The summary states each without jargon.
© 2026 Erik Postnieks · Independent Researcher · Salt Lake City