Global Incoherence of the Dissolution of the French National Assembly Demonstrated by Systemic and Temporal Evaluation

This white paper evaluates the dissolution of the French National Assembly announced on 9 June 2024 as a real systemic object, independently of its legal admissibility, political intent, or strategic justification. The work is grounded in a strict separation between local coherence and global coherence. Local coherence evaluates a decision at the point where it is taken, assessing internal consistency, legal admissibility, and immediate non-contradiction. This level of coherence establishes whether an act can be taken without negating its own premises. The local coherence of the dissolution has been established independently in a prior record (DOI: 10.5281/zenodo.18298563) and is not re-evaluated here. The present paper operates at a different level. It evaluates global coherence, defined as the capacity of a decision to remain admissible as a trajectory once it becomes embedded in a real system and exposed to time. Global coherence is assessed through observable behavior: reception by institutions and collective actors, execution and governance continuity, diffusion across media and networks, accumulation of corrective mechanisms, and convergence or non-convergence toward stability over time. The dissolution constitutes a rare and decisive object of study. It is an irreversible public decision, constitutionally admissible, massively diffused, collectively evaluated by institutions, media, and citizens, and followed by extensive and verifiable consequences over an extended temporal horizon. The analysis therefore relies exclusively on public, dated, and verifiable traces, without counterfactual reasoning, causal attribution, or normative judgment. Applying a state-based and temporal methodology, the analysis shows that while the dissolution satisfies local coherence conditions, it fails to meet global coherence criteria. Across institutional, collective, executive, communicational, and temporal states, the decision generates persistent fragmentation, repeated corrective actions, and reliance on exceptional procedures. Corrective pressure does not diminish over time, and no convergence toward a stable configuration is observed. This pattern is sufficient to establish the verdict of global incoherence. The result does not imply error, fault, or illegitimacy. It reflects a structural mismatch between the local validity of the act and the capacity of the system to absorb and maintain it without continuous compensation. The contribution of this work is twofold. First, it demonstrates that local coherence and global coherence are distinct, non-equivalent properties that must be evaluated separately. Second, it shows that time functions as an empirical arbiter of global coherence: a decision that is globally coherent tends to stabilize and reduce corrective load, whereas a globally incoherent decision persists only through sustained effort. The framework presented here is domain-independent. It applies to public governance, institutional reform, organizational strategy, board-level decisions, and complex system interventions. It does not propose alternative decisions, policy recommendations, or future scenarios. Its sole purpose is to evaluate admissibility at the global level and to clarify why decisions that are valid in principle may fail to hold in reality. Together with the local coherence evaluation, this work completes a two-level framework for decision assessment. Local coherence establishes admissibility at the point of action. Global coherence establishes admissibility over time. The two evaluations are complementary, non-contradictory, and jointly necessary to understand the behavior of decisions as real objects in the world.