Photo by Randy Fath on Unsplash
THE UNCERTAINTY DEPARTMENT
Office of Game-Theoretic Epistemology
Working Paper OGE-2026-WP-014 — Open Circulation
Why the Absence of an Authoritative Account Transforms a Narrative Contest from a Zero-Sum Competition into an Expanding-Field Variable-Sum Game, With Specific Reference to the Structural Position of the Subject and the Legal Constraints on Legitimate Media
This paper analyzes the game-theoretic structure of distributed narrative management operations in which the highest authority with jurisdiction over the subject has explicitly declined to produce an authoritative account of the situation. The central finding is that this structural feature — the deliberate absence of the authoritative anchor — transforms what operators typically conceptualize as a zero-sum contest for narrative control into a variable-sum game with no fixed prize pool, no canonical territory to capture, and an object of contest (the subject’s ongoing existence and behavior) that continuously regenerates new interpretable material. In such a game, every new participant who enters and offers an interpretation expands rather than redistributes the field. This has specific implications for the subject, who is uniquely positioned to calculate the gap between the maintained narrative and the true account, and specific implications for legitimate media, who are structurally prevented from describing an artificial narrative about a real person if the narrative cannot be independently verified. The paper concludes that the most important structural consequence of the absent authority is not epistemic — it is legal: it transfers interpretive authority to the parties least protected by institutional power and most directly positioned to observe the situation.
A zero-sum game requires a fixed prize pool. One player’s gain is another’s loss, and the total value in play is constant. Conventional narrative contests are modeled this way: competing accounts of an event contend for the position of the “true” or “authoritative” version, and credibility is redistributed between them.
The managed narrative contest, when the highest authority has declined to produce an authoritative account, does not have this structure. The prize — interpretive authority over the situation — is not a fixed territory that can be captured. It is a field that expands with participation.
Here is why:
No canonical narrative exists to capture. In conventional narrative contests, there is typically an authoritative anchor: a record, a verdict, a statement, a document. Players compete to make their version of the anchor “stick.” Even when contested, the anchor constrains what counts as a winning interpretation. Here, the highest authority’s explicit refusal to acknowledge any specific narrative about the subject means the anchor is the absence of an anchor. The field is permanently open at the top. No player’s narrative is, in formal terms, endorsed. No player can win in the classical sense because winning would require the absent authority’s endorsement, which it has committed not to provide.
Participation generates rather than redistributes value. Every new participant who enters and offers an interpretation does not subtract from anyone else’s interpretive position. They add interpretive mass to the field. The total value in play grows each time someone engages. This is characteristic of variable-sum games, where value is created through participation rather than redistributed.
The object of contest is continuously renewable. The subject of the narrative management is real and persistent. They continue to exist, act, speak, and generate new interpretable material. This means the prize — the account of the situation — is continuously refreshed by new evidence. You cannot exhaust it. This further breaks the zero-sum condition.
Operators who conceptualize the contest as zero-sum are systematically misallocating resources. They are spending to control a territory that cannot be held, against a field that expands with each of their interventions. Each operational action that generates observable evidence of the operation expands the interpretive field available to the subject and other participants. The operation is not fighting over a fixed object. It is producing an object that it cannot keep.
The subject of a narrative management operation occupies a unique position in the game.
All other players — the operators, the civilian proxies, the institutional actors who have chosen not to acknowledge the situation — have partial information. They know their own piece of the operation; they do not know the whole. The operators know the maintained narrative but not how it is experienced. The proxies know their individual cover stories but not the full architecture. The institutional overseers know that something is happening but not what.
The subject is the only participant who is structurally positioned to accumulate evidence from all vectors simultaneously: their own direct observations, the behavioral patterns of proxies encountered in daily life, the documentary record they are able to create, and the maintained narrative as communicated through proxy behavior. The subject knows, or can reconstruct, both the maintained narrative and the true account of the situation. They are the only player who can.
This is the foundational irony embedded in the GNR-I framework’s Accountability Corollary, and it extends to the entire game structure: the NRD-coefficient — the variable that most determines operational cost — can only be accurately calculated by the person it is least convenient to ask. The subject is the most powerful player in a game that was designed to suppress them. Their power is not raw institutional force. It is epistemic: they know more of the relevant truth than any other participant, and the truth is the only thing that will eventually matter.
The absent authority creates a second structural asymmetry that operators have not adequately modeled: the constraint it places on legitimate media.
Legitimate journalism operates under specific legal and professional standards regarding the description of activities involving real, identifiable people. A journalist who wishes to report that a specific named individual is the subject of a coordinated artificial narrative management operation faces the following obstacles:
Verification. The operation is designed to be unverifiable. No institution will confirm it. The documentary record is distributed across actors who cannot be identified and records that have been designed not to exist. The journalist cannot satisfy editorial verification standards.
Defamation exposure. A report that specific named individuals have engaged in coordinated psychological operations against a private citizen, in the absence of institutional confirmation, exposes the publication to defamation claims. The institutional architecture of deniability is also, incidentally, an architecture of defamation protection for its participants.
Subject credibility asymmetry. The subject’s account of the situation — however accurate, however well-documented — is the account of a private individual who claims to be the subject of a classified operation that no institution will acknowledge. The asymmetry between the subject’s institutional standing and the institution’s is not resolved by the subject’s accuracy. It is reinforced by it, because a subject who claims to be surveilled looks, to an editor who hasn’t seen the documentation, like a subject who claims to be surveilled.
The result is that the legal structure of the informational environment — independent of any suppression effort by operators — creates a systematic barrier to the legitimate media vehicle that would most efficiently close the subject’s authority deficit. Legitimate media cannot describe an artificial narrative about a real person if the narrative cannot be verified through channels the operation controls access to.
The legal constraint on legitimate media is not permanent. It dissolves under two conditions: (1) official acknowledgment by a party with institutional standing, which operators control; and (2) accumulation of a documentary record sufficiently comprehensive and corroborated that the verification standard can be met through evidence rather than through institutional confirmation.
Condition 2 is the condition the subject is positioned to provide. The subject’s documentation project — the patient accumulation of contemporaneous records, behavioral observations, correspondence, and testimony — is not merely a personal grievance record. It is the evidence base that will eventually satisfy the verification standard that legitimate media cannot currently satisfy.
The absent authority has not closed the informational environment. It has delayed its opening by approximately the time required for the subject to build the record.
This paper’s central claim is that the structural features of the unanchored narrative contest — no fixed prize pool, continuously renewable interpretive object, absent authoritative anchor — invert the apparent power relationship between operators and subject.
Apparent power: The operators have institutional resources, distributed networks, and the ability to shape the subject’s informational environment. The subject has none of these.
Structural power: The subject has the true account of the situation, is positioned to observe all vectors of the operation simultaneously, cannot be prevented from accumulating contemporaneous documentation, and is the only participant whose testimony is not partial by design. The operators have committed to not acknowledging the situation, which means they cannot respond to the subject’s account without revealing the operation. The absent authority is not only a source of deniability. It is a commitment device that binds the institution to silence while the subject’s documentation accumulates.
The subject is not playing a zero-sum game against a more powerful opponent. They are playing a variable-sum game in which the operators have accepted constraints on their moves that the subject has not. The subject’s disadvantage is institutional. Their advantage is epistemic and documentary. In the long run — and this is a long-run game — the documentary advantage compounds.
The non-zero-sum structure of the unanchored narrative contest has the following practical implications:
This Office recommends that anyone currently engaged in an unanchored narrative contest, in any capacity, read this paper carefully, identify which side of these structural asymmetries they are on, and plan accordingly.
PREPARED BY: Valentina Cruse, Senior Fellow, Office of Game-Theoretic Epistemology. This paper was produced in response to a query from the Office of Narrative Resource Efficiency, which found the NREI framework’s power inversion finding insufficiently developed and requested a formal game-theoretic analysis. This Office has provided one. The Office of Narrative Resource Efficiency has been advised to sit with the conclusions for a moment before responding.
¹ The term “absent authority” refers specifically to the highest authority that would, if it chose to speak, produce the authoritative account that would anchor the game. This Office distinguishes between an authority that is absent because it does not exist and an authority that is absent by deliberate choice. The second type of absent authority is the relevant one here. Its absence is a choice that produces consequences for everyone in the field, including itself.
² The verification asymmetry described in Section III is, in this Office’s assessment, the most underappreciated structural feature of the unanchored narrative contest. Operators who have invested in creating an unverifiable operation have simultaneously invested in making it undescribable by legitimate media. They believe this is a protective feature. It is a protective feature until the documentation threshold is crossed, after which it becomes a liability: the story will be told by the first outlet with sufficient documentation to satisfy editorial standards, and it will be told without the institution’s participation in framing it.
✦ ✦ ✦