Verifiable Propositions of Clinical Organizational Science (COS): How to Validate the 6-Month Threshold, 3Good1More, and 2-on-1

DroR Inc. (Headquarters: Shibuya, Tokyo; Representative: Makoto Yamanaka), a research-practice firm that observes and designs the 'invisible interaction structures' of organizations based on complex systems science and neuroscience, has published the paper 'Clinical Organizational Science: An Integrative Framework for Structural Intervention in Complex Organizations,' with Makoto Yamanaka as the lead author, in the Organizational Psychology section of the international journal 'Frontiers in Psychology.'

The English news release regarding this paper has been distributed via EurekAlert!, and the issues raised by COS have been featured on the international science news site Phys.org. This release organizes verifiable propositions to open COS from conceptual analysis to independent verification.

This release is part of the Clinical Organizational Science (COS) commentary series, distributed from May 7th to June 5th. This edition focuses on the three verifiable propositions presented by COS, detailing how it connects with and expands upon existing theories, and what testable questions it raises.

■ Fixed Definition of Clinical Organizational Science (COS)

Clinical Organizational Science (COS) is a framework that integrates complex systems science, neuroscience, organizational psychology, and behavioral science to theorize interaction structures that actively reproduce organizational stability and to intervene in those structures. COS treats organizational change as 'organizational attractor transition' rather than 'individual behavioral change,' and presents Field Gradient Theory, Loop Conversion Design, and Neural Base Design as its core techniques. It proposes the concept of an 'emergence bridge' to connect individual habituation with organizational-level change.

■ COS Presented as a 'Verifiable Research Program'

COS is not presented as a completed empirical theory. The paper is a conceptual analysis that integrates existing theories, redefines organizational change as a structural intervention problem, and presents propositions to be verified or falsified in the future.

This positioning is treated as an important premise in the introductions by EurekAlert! and Phys.org. Phys.org also introduces the paper not as empirical research, but as a conceptual analysis that indicates propositions that other researchers can verify in the future.

Therefore, for COS, it is important not only to present attractive concepts, but also to clarify which claims can be measured and validated through specific research designs.

■ Proposition 1: Sustainable Implementation of Neural Base Design and Autonomous Behavior Fixation

The first proposition is that in organizations where Neural Base Design has been implemented consistently for a certain period, behaviors such as acknowledgment, gratitude sharing, physical check-ins, and 3Good1More may transition to a stage where they are autonomously reproduced without external promotion.

In this paper, we present a tentative time hypothesis of approximately 6 months. However, this is not a guarantee. It is expected to vary significantly depending on organizational size, culture, power distance, management involvement, existing psychological safety, and the presence of crisis states.

■ Proposition 2: 3Good1More and Cognitive Broadening

The second proposition is that 3Good1More may influence how developmental feedback is received. By structurally preceding with positive observation, the receiver's attention may expand toward improvement possibilities rather than narrowing down defensively.

This proposition can be verified by connecting it with Fredrickson's Broaden-and-Build theory, feedback intervention research, negativity bias, and cybernetics. For example, cognitive flexibility, psychological safety, feedback acceptance, and post-meeting behavioral changes can be measured.

■ Proposition 3: 2-on-1 Configuration and Attractor Perturbation

The third proposition is that the 2-on-1 configuration in Field Gradient Theory compares to 1-on-1 and...