Thanks as always Phil for taking the time to respond. Your response largely pivots on:

You’re mistaking component architecture with system architecture and then criticizing the ability of architecture to elucidate the problems because component architecture doesn’t answer all the questions.

We are contemplating quite different scales of system. The system architecture to which I refer encompasses human behaviour, human community and society, and the natural living world. I have not seen any system analysis from the SSI community at such scales, nor any anticipation then of the inevitable emergence.

The system architecture to which you refer is technical. Period. There is no way, contrary to your assertion, that the distressing consequences with which I’m concerned ought to follow from this system architecture. There may be some, but my focus is SSI in the real world.

(You also write that the principles are very much a part of the architecture, but then note that there aren’t any consistent principles??)

I, and increasingly others, will keep on highlighting the distressing outcomes here, and I thank you again for treating me here as a critical friend. Thanks. Much appreciated.