Why Local Reconstruction Raises Coordination Cost ​

Where the shared object is not held infrastructurally, each party is forced to assemble its own reading from its own sources.

As a result, the same coordination situation begins to exist as a set of private versions:

• for one party, the object is already considered complete;
• for another, it is still awaiting confirmation;
• for a third, there is not yet enough basis to treat the transition as valid;
• for a fourth, there is only a fragment of a document or message.

The divergence is discovered not at the moment of action, but later — when it becomes necessary to:

• confirm the next step;
• present a basis for settlement;
• prove which state should be treated as operative;
• explain which version of the object is considered operative.

Coordination then starts to rely on external actions:

• correspondence;
• manual reconciliation;
• repeated confirmation;
• reconciliation of discrepancies;
• transfer of responsibility between participants.

What is lost architecturally ​

The problem here is not only the growth of operational cost. What is also lost is architectural definiteness itself:

• the object ceases to be held as one and the same inter-subject unit;
• transitions lose a shared basis and start being read differently;
• relations between objects collapse into private versions;
• the current result ceases to be a stable shared basis for the next action.

Why the cost rises ​

The cost rises not only because of the number of messages. It rises because coordination itself becomes dependent on the constant restoration of shared meaning.

In other words, the cost is created not by a lack of events, but by the absence of a shared holding of the object as a network unit.