How to Read PCGD and RCDD: Scope, Instantiation Width, and Independence in the AST Governance Pair

This document is a non-interpretive companion and reading protocol for two AST-structured papers: Post-Consent Governance Drift (PCGD): An Axiomatic and Synthetic Theory (AST) Recognition, Consent, and Democratic Drift (RCDD): Why Correctness Fails to Restore Legitimacy Both papers are written in axiomatic compression form—minimal prose, maximal structural generality. While this design enables wide cross-domain instantiation, it also makes the papers vulnerable to predictable category errors, including normative substitution, empirical displacement, historical misreading, and psychological reduction. This document exists to prevent those errors. Purpose and status This text does not extend, modify, or interpret the theoretical content of PCGD or RCDD. It introduces no new axioms, postulates, principles, mechanisms, or theorems. Its sole function is reader-side discipline: clarifying scope conditions, admissible instantiation width, and correct modes of reading AST-derived work. What the document does Specifies the system class to which PCGD and RCDD apply (durable cooperative systems requiring sustained acceptance). Explains why structural minimalism implies wide instantiation, rather than narrow scope. Clarifies the logical independence and practical complementarity of PCGD (structural/steering drift) and RCDD (recognition/legitimacy drift). Provides a procedural reading method for axiomatic and synthetic texts. Distinguishes between scope violations, mapping errors, and genuine theoretical falsification. What the document does not do It does not provide case studies, examples, or empirical validation. It does not argue for any political, organizational, or ideological position. It does not interpret PCGD or RCDD as claims about any specific country, regime, institution, or historical period. It does not resolve normative questions or policy debates. Intended audience This companion is intended for: readers unfamiliar with axiomatic and synthetic theory formats, reviewers assessing scope, coherence, and admissibility, scholars applying PCGD or RCDD across domains (political, organizational, digital, scientific), practitioners using the theories diagnostically rather than rhetorically. Methodological positioning The document operates entirely within Axiomatic and Synthetic Theory (AST) and should be read as a reading protocol, not as a theoretical contribution in its own right.