Le texte de l’ouvrage est en anglais, tel qu’il a été écrit ; seule l’interface du site est en français.

The map of the system — how the pieces fit together

Page liminaire 5 sur 8 · ≈ 2 min de lecture · 7 paragraphes · 5ᵉ des 40 sections de lecture · rechercher dans l’ouvrage

This work assembles some twenty named objects — three completenesses, ten principles, seven functions, three instruments, two loops, seven classes, three epistemic rungs. None is decorative: each consumes what another produces. Each is defined in the right place; no single place, until now, showed how they fit together. It is this burden on memory that the present map relieves. It replaces the former boxes “How to read this document” and “How to read the boxes”, whose substance it takes over in full.¶ 1

The five levels not to be confused

An externality is not a fault; an incidence is not a causal relation; a causal relation is not a legal liability; a theory of accountability does not impose a determinate institution; and a proposed architecture is not yet an empirical result.¶ 2

The three keys — the misreadings to avoid

The theory is not the organisation chart. The Global Accountability Chain — the three completenesses — is the contribution; the 7+3 is only a candidate instantiation of it, compared with lighter architectures and revocable if one of them protects evidence, independence and redress just as well at lower cost (§4.4-4.6). Refuting the 7+3 does not refute the chain; refuting one case — the monetary one is one family out of twenty — refutes neither the one nor the other.¶ 3

Two loops, one case file. The chain responds to effects that are observed or sufficiently measurable; the preventive loop acts on reasonably foreseeable cascades (§1.5, §15). No alert creates a consequence: it creates procedural duties — to examine, to notify, to give reasons for the response.¶ 4

Nothing beyond its status. Every claim carries a category (Table 1, infra), every figure a rung (Box 10, infra), every box a type. An accounting incidence is neither a welfare loss nor a fault; a rating is not a liability; “programme-derived” means “to be replicated”.¶ 5

The map-table — each object, what it presupposes, what it feeds

The status of claims

Not all propositions have the same force. Reading must preserve the distinction between what is documented, what results from the internal programme, what constitutes a design proposal, what formulates an objection and what forbids any conclusion. This discipline is part of the theory: a decision cannot be more certain than the evidence it carries.¶ 6

Reading pathways

The work can be read continuously, but its structure allows targeted pathways. The durations are indicative: they give an order of priority, not a hierarchy of audiences.¶ 7

@incollection{yaiche_hc_the_map_of_the_system_how_the_pieces_fit_together,
  author    = {Yaïche, Nizar},
  title     = {The map of the system — how the pieces fit together},
  booktitle = {The Humanity Compact},
  year      = {2026},
  version   = {2.3},
  doi       = {10.5281/zenodo.22746533},
  publisher = {Zenodo},
  url       = {https://humanitycompact.org/ouvrage/the-map-of-the-system-how-the-pieces-fit-together/}
}

Ouvrage de Nizar Yaïche, ancien ministre des Finances de la République tunisienne. Qui est l’auteur ?