We cannot push a hand through a wall because it is solid. Likewise, there are structures of failure through which no further reasoning can pass—not because reason is weak, but because it has reached its limit surface. Structural tragedy begins where rational admissibility ends. Beyond that wall, there is no mistake to correct, no belief to update, no incentive to realign. There is only loss that remains even if everyone reasons correctly.

We study what lies beyond that wall.

This is a structural normative research lab devoted to diagnosis. We investigate failures that persist under ideal rationality due to representational and admissibility constraints rather than error, bias, or inefficiency.

Our work is grounded in Structural Admissibility Theory, which studies how structural constraints determine what states, actions, beliefs, or claims are admissible within a system—and how failures arise when admissibility boundaries conflict, fragment, or collapse.

Using this framework, we examine how values, beliefs, and interpretive structures delimit what outcomes are possible, including cases of unavoidable tragedy.

We do not ask how agents should reason better.
 We ask where better reasoning no longer helps—and what still matters there.

Members:

Publications: