Policy can pivot in a meeting.
Culture resists in corridors.
Two weeks into the engagement, the metrics were stabilizing—but behavior lagged.
Variance mapping was underway.
Archival access was expanding.
Board reporting lines were clarified.
On paper, momentum was clean.
In practice, it was slower.
Han Zhe flagged the first pattern.
"Middle management is buffering," he said.
"How?"
"Reframing requests as workflow interruptions. Suggesting timelines are unrealistic."
"That's predictable," I replied. "They're defending operational rhythm."
Rhythm becomes identity.
Change feels like accusation.
Gu Chengyi observed it from the investor side.
"They're reassured by the initiative," he said. "But they're watching for execution fatigue."
Execution fatigue is real.
Reform exhausts the unprepared.
Especially those who benefited from ambiguity without realizing it.
During a cross-functional session, a senior operations director pushed back.
"With respect," he said, tone measured, "continuous verification creates distrust."
"No," I replied evenly. "It creates consistency."
"That implies we were inconsistent."
"It implies the structure allowed variance."
A subtle but critical distinction.
Accusations create defensiveness.
Structural language creates accountability.
The pause on discretionary consolidation had revealed something useful.
Teams were forced to articulate adjustments they once executed silently.
When required to explain logic, shortcuts lose appeal.
Friction had begun reshaping habit.
Still, cultural drag surfaced in small ways:
Delayed file uploads.
"Draft" labels that lingered indefinitely.
Meetings rescheduled without clear cause.
Not rebellion.
Resistance.
There's a difference.
Rebellion confronts.
Resistance absorbs.
I addressed it directly in the next board session.
"You have procedural alignment," I said. "Now you need behavioral alignment."
"How?" the Chair asked.
"Measure response times. Track documentation quality. Reward transparency publicly."
One director hesitated.
"Rewarding transparency risks exposing prior variance."
"Yes," I said. "That's the point."
Silence followed.
Culture shifts when incentives shift.
The executive who had asked if it was salvageable requested another conversation.
"Morale is fluctuating," she said.
"Because clarity removes plausible deniability."
"That sounds harsh."
"It's transitional."
She considered that.
"How long?"
"Long enough for people to realize integrity is not punitive."
Midweek, something changed.
A department head voluntarily flagged a discrepancy before audit review.
Not compelled.
Not anonymous.
Voluntary.
Han Zhe forwarded the report with one line:
That's new.
"Yes," I replied. "That's cultural momentum."
Momentum reduces drag.
Gu Chengyi updated investor sentiment.
Cautiously optimistic.
Volatility stabilizing.
Governance narrative gaining traction.
Markets respond to trajectory more than perfection.
Late Friday, I reviewed the behavioral metrics.
Response times improving.
Variance reports increasing—but shrinking in magnitude.
Transparency had begun feeding itself.
Cultural drag was still present.
But diminishing.
Han Zhe called near midnight.
"You think they'll hold?"
"Yes."
"Why?"
"They've internalized the cost of drift."
A pause.
"And the previous institution?"
"They internalized the cost of exposure."
Two different lessons.
One reactive.
One preventative.
This consortium was choosing prevention.
That's harder.
And far more durable.
Next week would test it further.
Because true cultural shift isn't proven by compliance—
It's proven when no one is watching.