SWANK Position 005

SWANK POSITION PAGE 005 — PROCEDURAL INTEGRITY: WHY SEQUENCE MATTERS MORE THAN INTENT

This document records a failure that institutions routinely mischaracterize as urgency.

It is not urgency.
It is inversion.

This position addresses procedural integrity as a condition of legitimate authority. Not etiquette. Not best practice. Order.

Where authority acts before engagement, consequence before explanation, and justification after impact, legitimacy collapses regardless of intent or outcome.

Sequence is not cosmetic.
It is the restraint.

What This Position Establishes

Legitimate authority acts in sequence.

Assessment must precede intervention.
Engagement must precede escalation.
Justification must precede consequence.

When this order is violated, authority becomes arbitrary by design.
Fairness cannot be retrofitted.

What This Is

• The fifth position in a closed ethical doctrine
• A structural constraint on authority grounded in order, not motive
• A citation-stable Canon entry

What This Is Not

• A policy guide
• A legal submission
• A commentary on professionalism
• A debate

This document does not rehabilitate disorder.
It records why acting first and explaining later nullifies authority entirely.

It is priced deliberately.
It is intended for readers who understand that procedure is the mechanism by which power restrains itself.