Noise as a governance technology: why “activity” often replaces outcomes
A framework to separate performative motion from real execution: signals, artifacts, friction, and the cost of accountability.
The pattern
Many environments reward visible motion (announcements, reforms, “initiatives”) more than measurable delivery. Noise becomes a substitute for accountability because it is cheap to produce and hard to falsify in the short term.
Four tests for “real execution”
- Artifacts: What exists that can be verified without permission? (working demos, reproducible outputs, public interfaces)
- Friction: What new constraint was removed? (time, cost, compliance risk, failure modes)
- Ownership: Who carries the downside if it fails? (not who gets the credit)
- Time alignment: Does the timeline match real engineering and procurement cycles?
Why noise scales
Noise is scalable because it does not require tight coupling between promise and delivery. It can also be amplified by media incentives: “novelty” outcompetes “maintenance”.
What to look for instead
- Repeatability over novelty
- Constraint handling over slogans
- Proof-of-control (who can shut it down, audit it, reproduce it)
- Documented limits and failure cases
Closing note: If you can’t point to artifacts, you’re likely looking at a narrative economy, not an execution economy.
Opinion and interpretation only. Not financial, legal, political, or investment advice. Do not rely on this content for decisions.