That Socioplastics occupies a third position beyond the false binary of institutional absorption versus autonomous sovereignty. This is not merely a tactical manoeuvre but an architectural claim about how epistemic systems can relate to the institutions that surround them. The strategy of "strategic isomorphism combined with architectural autonomy" deserves careful parsing, for it promises to resolve tensions that have haunted experimental practice since the historical avant-gardes first confronted their eventual museumisation. The diagnosis of the binary is accurate. Institutional absorption—seeking validation through peer review, accreditation, disciplinary assimilation—does risk dissolving the specific density of autonomous practice into generalised academic discourse. Autonomous sovereignty—preserving conceptual purity at the cost of broader legibility—does risk irrelevance, the fate of esoteric movements that spoke only to themselves. The question is whether the proposed third term genuinely transcends this opposition or merely redescribes the dilemma in more sophisticated language. Strategic isomorphism: adopting the forms of institutional legitimacy (DOI registration, Harvard citation, ORCID alignment, eventual ROR formalisation) while retaining structural independence in core protocols. The Decalogue (501–510) remains sealed, its axioms non-negotiable, while consoles and jurisprudential expansions engage openly with transdisciplinary discourse. The claim is that this dual movement generates a hybrid field where sovereignty does not preclude dialogue and institutional engagement does not entail capitulation.
