TGE-360: A Mature, Executable and Evidence-Governed Taqrīb Governance Ecosystem

SeyyedAbdolHojjat  MoghadasNian

ПРЕПРИНТ

Эта статья является препринтом и не была отрецензирована.
О результатах, изложенных в препринтах, не следует сообщать в СМИ как о проверенной информации.

TGE-360: A Mature, Executable and Evidence-Governed Taqrīb Governance Ecosystem

S. MoghadasNian

2026-06-11

https://doi.org/10.24108/preprints-3115499

Taqrīb initiatives often remain vulnerable to event-based implementation, weak evidence traceability, fragmented institutional responsibility, limited feedback loops, and confusion between theological aspiration and executable governance. TGE-360 v1 is proposed as a mature, executable, and evidence-governed method/model for structuring Islamic intra-faith rapprochement as a measurable governance ecosystem without reducing faith, sanctity, spiritual worth, or doctrinal truth to performance indicators. The method integrates diagnosis, source-to-governance translation, comparative kalām and jurisprudence, institutional dialogue, media-risk monitoring, community trust-building, crisis resilience, indicator governance, decision execution, and adaptive localization into one meta-architecture. Its Design Science logic follows artifact construction, problem relevance, demonstration planning, evaluation discipline, and scholarly communication (Hevner et al., 2004; Peffers et al., 2007; Gregor & Hevner, 2013). Its measurement layer is constrained by performance-measurement and KPI-governance scholarship, which warns that ungoverned or strategy-misaligned metrics can distort behavior and weaken accountability (Neely et al., 1995; Nørreklit, 2000; Franco-Santos et al., 2012; Melnyk et al., 2014). Its validation pathway draws on Delphi consensus, content-validity logic, and multi-criteria weighting methods (Lawshe, 1975; Saaty, 1980; Hsu & Sandford, 2007). TGE-360 v1 does not replace prior author-developed frameworks; rather, it assigns them controlled roles as evidence lenses, translation modules, design modules, measurement controls, execution controls, or validation comparators (MoghadasNian, 2025a–2026c). The contribution is a method-registration-ready artifact that can guide students, researchers, supervisors, and institutions from evidence intake to coding, model construction, indicator design, validation planning, decision action, and learning revision while maintaining safe claim boundaries and avoiding unsupported claims of empirical effectiveness.

Ссылка для цитирования:

MoghadasNian S. 2026. TGE-360: A Mature, Executable and Evidence-Governed Taqrīb Governance Ecosystem. PREPRINTS.RU. https://doi.org/10.24108/preprints-3115499

Список литературы

1. Abu-Nimer, M. (2001). Conflict resolution, culture, and religion: Toward a training model of interreligious peacebuilding. Journal of Peace Research, 38(6), 685-704. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022343301038006003

2. Amman Message. (2005). The three points of the Amman Message. The Official Site of the Amman Message. https://ammanmessage.com/

3. Ansell, C., & Gash, A. (2008). Collaborative governance in theory and practice. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 18(4), 543-571. https://doi.org/10.1093/jopart/mum032

4. Brundage, M., Avin, S., Wang, J., Belfield, H., Krueger, G., Hadfield, G., et al. (2020). Toward trustworthy AI development: Mechanisms for supporting verifiable claims. arXiv. https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2004.07213

5. Brunner, R. (2004). Islamic ecumenism in the 20th century: The Azhar and Shiism between rapprochement and restraint. Brill.

6. Clooney, F. X. (2010). Comparative theology: Deep learning across religious borders. Wiley-Blackwell.

7. Floridi, L., & Cowls, J. (2019). A unified framework of five principles for AI in society. Harvard Data Science Review, 1(1). https://doi.org/10.1162/99608f92.8cd550d1

8. Franco-Santos, M., Lucianetti, L., & Bourne, M. (2012). Contemporary performance measurement systems: A review of their consequences and a framework for research. Management Accounting Research, 23(2), 79-119. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.mar.2012.04.001

9. Gregor, S., & Hevner, A. R. (2013). Positioning and presenting design science research for maximum impact. MIS Quarterly, 37(2), 337-355.

10. Hevner, A. R., March, S. T., Park, J., & Ram, S. (2004). Design science in information systems research. MIS Quarterly, 28(1), 75-105.

11. Hsu, C.-C., & Sandford, B. A. (2007). The Delphi technique: Making sense of consensus. Practical Assessment, Research, and Evaluation, 12(10). https://doi.org/10.7275/pdz9-th90

12. Inayatullah, S. (1998). Causal layered analysis: Poststructuralism as method. Futures, 30(8), 815-829.

13. International Organization for Standardization. (2018). ISO 31000:2018 Risk management - Guidelines. ISO.

14. International Organization for Standardization. (2022). ISO 8000-150:2022 Data quality management - Roles and responsibilities. ISO.

15. John Paul II. (1995). Ut Unum Sint. Vatican.

16. Kaplan, R. S., & Norton, D. P. (1996). The balanced scorecard: Translating strategy into action. Harvard Business School Press.

17. Lawshe, C. H. (1975). A quantitative approach to content validity. Personnel Psychology, 28(4), 563-575. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1744-6570.1975.tb01393.x

18. Melnyk, S. A., Bititci, U., Platts, K., Tobias, J., & Andersen, B. (2014). Is performance measurement and management fit for the future? Management Accounting Research, 25(2), 173-186. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.mar.2013.07.007

19. Mittelstadt, B. D., Allo, P., Taddeo, M., Wachter, S., & Floridi, L. (2016). The ethics of algorithms: Mapping the debate. Big Data & Society, 3(2). https://doi.org/10.1177/2053951716679679

20. Moghadas Nian, S., JafarTayari Dehaqani, M., Farmanian, M., AlizadehMousavi, S. M., HosseinPoor, S. M. M., & Bagheri, A. (2025). The Taqrib Diagnostic–Decision Model (TDDM): A KPI-Governed Architecture for Islamic Intra-Faith Rapprochement. SSRN. https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.5981955

21. MoghadasNian, S. A. H. (2025a). Taqrib Diagnostic–Decision Model (TDDM): A Multi-Dimensional Framework for Classifying, Designing and Evaluating Islamic Intra-Faith Rapprochement. University of Religions and Denominations. ResearchGate. https://doi.org/10.13140/RG.2.2.27306.68806

22. MoghadasNian, S. A. H. (2025c). 7S-360 Strategic Indicator Architecture: A KPI-Governed Framework for Integrated Governance. University of Religions and Denominations (URD). https://doi.org/10.13140/RG.2.2.15665.24160

23. MoghadasNian, S. A. H. (2025d). Global Kalam Strategic Framework (GKSF): A fourteen-pillar KPI-based comparative model for Islamic unity and theological convergence. University of Religions and Denominations. ResearchGate. https://doi.org/10.13140/RG.2.2.16774.28489/1

24. MoghadasNian, S. A. H. (2025e). Twelve-pillar framework for comparative jurisprudence (TPF-CJ). University of Religions and Denominations. ResearchGate. https://doi.org/10.13140/RG.2.2.26840.61441/1

25. MoghadasNian, S. A. H. (2025f). Islamic Ḥiwār Framework (IHF): A KPI-Based Architecture for Intra-Faith Dialogue and Civilizational Unity. University of Religions and Denominations. ResearchGate. https://doi.org/10.13140/RG.2.2.34234.30403

26. MoghadasNian, S. A. H. (2025g). Interfaith Doctrinal Dialogue Framework (IDDF): A KPI-Oriented Architecture for Abrahamic Unity. University of Religions and Denominations. ResearchGate. https://doi.org/10.13140/RG.2.2.13026.85443

27. MoghadasNian, S. A. H. (2025h). Ecumenical Christian KPI Framework (ECKF): A KPI-Based Strategic Architecture for Christian Unity and Institutional Dialogue. University of Religions and Denominations. ResearchGate. https://doi.org/10.13140/RG.2.2.31969.21609

28. MoghadasNian, S. A. H. (2025i). Islamic Theological Dialogue Framework (ITDF): A KPI-Based Architecture for Intra-Islamic Unity and Interfaith Readiness. University of Religions and Denominations (URD). ResearchGate. https://doi.org/10.13140/RG.2.2.19952.11521

29. MoghadasNian, S. A. H. (2025j). Unified Civilizational Theological Architecture (UCTA): A KPI-Governed Goal Architecture for Islamic Civilizational Renewal. University of Religions and Denominations. ResearchGate. https://doi.org/10.13140/RG.2.2.35438.27202

30. MoghadasNian, S. A. H. (2025k). Taqrīb Quadripartite Architecture (TQA-4): A KPI-Governed Super-Framework for Engineering Islamic Unity. University of Religions and Denominations. ResearchGate. https://doi.org/10.13140/RG.2.2.10560.80646

31. MoghadasNian, S. A. H. (2026a). PRGDAI-SD 360+ decision architecture: Integrating performance, risk, governance, data, artificial intelligence, sustainability, and decision execution. University of Religions and Denominations. ResearchGate. https://doi.org/10.13140/RG.2.2.17495.02729

32. MoghadasNian, S. A. H. (2026c). ADCM-360: Airline Digital Core Modernization 360° Framework. Tarbiat Modares University. ResearchGate. https://doi.org/10.13140/RG.2.2.23299.46885

33. MoghadasNian, S. A. H., (2025b). UCTA‑PA: Unified Civilizational Theological Architecture: A Performance Architecture for Measurable Rapprochement and Civilizational Renewal. University of Religions and Denominations. ResearchGate. https://doi.org/10.13140/RG.2.2.16602.40647

34. MoghadasNian, S. A. H., (2026b). Civilizational Algorithm Theory (CAT): A Design–Science Method for Sacred-Text Ontology Structuring and Theology-to-Governance Translation. University of Religions and Denominations. ResearchGate. https://doi.org/10.13140/RG.2.2.17244.86400

35. MoghadasNian, S. A. H., AlizadehMousavi, S. M., HosseinPoor, S. M. M., Bagheri, A., MoghadasNian, S. A. Hamed., & Qasemi, E. (2025). A KPI-governed Taqrīb architecture: A data-driven roadmap to the New Islamic Civilization (DDRNIC). SSRN. https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.5995838

36. MoghadasNian, S. A. H., Raeisi, Z., Karami, F., MoghadasNian, S. A. H., & MoghadasNian, A. S. (2025). A KPI-Governed Architecture for Integrated Civilizational Renewal (ICRA): From Theological Convergence to Measurable Unity (MCPI). SSRN. https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.5990594

37. MoghadasNian, S., AlizadehMousavi, S. M., HosseinPoor, S. M. M., & Bagheri, A. (2025, August 22). Islamic Ḥiwār Framework (IHF) A KPI-Based Strategic Architecture for Intra-Faith Dialogue, Institutional Governance, and Civilizational Unity. SSRN. https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.6011734

38. National Institute of Standards and Technology. (2023). Artificial Intelligence Risk Management Framework (AI RMF 1.0). NIST AI 100-1. https://doi.org/10.6028/NIST.AI.100-1

39. Neely, A., Gregory, M., & Platts, K. (1995). Performance measurement system design: A literature review and research agenda. International Journal of Operations & Production Management, 15(4), 80-116. https://doi.org/10.1108/01443579510083622

40. Norreklit, H. (2000). The balance on the balanced scorecard: A critical analysis of some of its assumptions. Management Accounting Research, 11(1), 65-88. https://doi.org/10.1006/mare.1999.0121

41. OECD. (2019). Recommendation of the Council on Artificial Intelligence. OECD/LEGAL/0449.

42. Orton, A. (2016). Interfaith dialogue: Seven key questions for theory, policy and practice. Religion, State & Society, 44(4), 349-365.

43. Ostrom, E. (1990). Governing the commons: The evolution of institutions for collective action. Cambridge University Press.

44. Ostrom, E. (2010). Beyond markets and states: Polycentric governance of complex economic systems. American Economic Review, 100(3), 641-672. https://doi.org/10.1257/aer.100.3.641

45. Peffers, K., Tuunanen, T., Rothenberger, M. A., & Chatterjee, S. (2007). A design science research methodology for information systems research. Journal of Management Information Systems, 24(3), 45-77. https://doi.org/10.2753/MIS0742-1222240302

46. Raji, I. D., Smart, A., White, R. N., Mitchell, M., Gebru, T., Hutchinson, B., et al. (2020). Closing the AI accountability gap: Defining an end-to-end framework for internal algorithmic auditing. Proceedings of the 2020 Conference on Fairness, Accountability, and Transparency, 33-44. https://doi.org/10.1145/3351095.3372873

47. Saaty, T. L. (1980). The analytic hierarchy process: Planning, priority setting, resource allocation. McGraw-Hill.

48. Second Vatican Council. (1964). Unitatis Redintegratio: Decree on ecumenism. Vatican.

49. World Council of Churches. (2013). The Church: Towards a Common Vision. Faith and Order Paper No. 214. WCC Publications.

ПРЕПРИНТ

ИНФОРМАЦИЯ

Использование куки-файлов