有限条件结构中的强制重合及其边界
Forced Coincidence and Its Boundary in Finite Condition Structures
AI总结：
本研究用有限条件结构统一解释组织解体的三种现象，刻画强制重合的精确条件，并证明随掩码增多满足条件的实例比例趋于零。
AI中文摘要：
关于组织解体的各种理论分别用不同的术语解释了幸存者同质化、时间上集中的退出以及分裂为内聚子群等现象。这些现象的反复出现正是需要解释的事实。一个带有最小动态扩展的有限条件结构能够生成上述全部三种现象，且每种现象各自处于其特定机制区间内，并且没有任何行动者对其他行动者做出响应；随后确定了当定义这些机制区间的限制条件被放宽时，哪些结论仍然成立。对于两个需求掩码，并集类（union class）是纯类型与具有最大闭邻域的特征（signature）之间的唯一中介，并且在正端点负载下，它也是缺陷负载（deficient load）的唯一最大化者，因此关于分裂和同质化的独立推导都涉及该并集类。对于多于两个掩码的情况，这三个角色不必重合。强制重合（forced coincidence）对于任意数量的掩码都具有精确刻画：它成立当且仅当由需求导出的并（requirement-derived join）位于可实现族中并且分离端点。在均匀计数测度下，随着掩码数量的增加，满足此条件的族对实例所占比例趋于零；并且，在每特征一个行动者的情形下，高于规定界限的边密度会排除该条件。共同的基底并不会使机制完全相同：选择性损耗（selective attrition）可以成立而相关崩溃（correlated collapse）失败，并且退出依赖性的改变可以改变总体结果，而每个行动者的边际寿命分布保持不变。
英文摘要：
Accounts of organizational dissolution explain survivor homogenization, temporally concentrated exit, and fragmentation into cohesive subgroups in different vocabularies. Their recurrence is the fact to be explained. A finite condition structure with a minimal dynamic extension generates all three, each in its own regime, with no actor responding to another; which conclusions survive when the restrictions defining those regimes are relaxed is then determined. With two requirement masks the union class is the only mediator between the pure types and the signature with the largest closed neighbourhood, and under positive endpoint loads it is also the unique maximizer of deficient load, so the independent derivations of fragmentation and homogenization both concern that class. With more than two masks the three roles need not coincide. Forced coincidence admits an exact characterization for every number of masks: it holds if and only if the requirement-derived join lies in the realized family and separates the endpoints. The proportion of family-pair instances meeting this condition vanishes under a uniform counting measure as the number of masks increases, and, at one actor per signature, an edge density above a stated bound excludes it. A common substrate does not make the mechanisms identical: selective attrition can hold while correlated collapse fails, and a change in exit dependence can change the population outcome while every actor's marginal lifetime law is unchanged.
