Eighty percent of strategies lose execution velocity within weeks of launch — not because the plan was wrong, but because peak readiness decays in under ten seconds, even in learned tasks. That finding comes from cognitive attention research published in PMC, and a Q1 2026 Harvard study confirmed the business parallel: self-correcting organizations sustain twice the execution velocity of traditional firms during market turbulence. Twice. The difference isn't talent or resources. It's architecture — specifically, whether correction is designed into the system or left to chance. While resistance is a factor, the focus here is on designing systems that inherently maintain alignment and velocity. Now the question shifts: once alignment is built, how do you keep it from decaying? The answer lies in structured systems and rhythms that ensure continuous alignment. Science has been self-correcting for centuries through replication and independent benchmarks — and enterprise pilots since January 2026 show 25% velocity gains when organizations borrow that exact logic, designing AI-assisted feedback loops that automatically detect strategic drift before it compounds. The mechanism is called a self-correcting system: feedback loops intentionally built into recurring organizational processes so deviations surface and get fixed without waiting for a crisis. Here is the physics of why this matters, CallMe. Vigilant attention — the kind required to execute a strategy — cannot be sustained beyond seconds at peak readiness. It requires periodic repreparation. Organizations that don't build refresh cycles into their operating rhythm experience what researchers call performance decay: the gradual loss of momentum as key operational priorities fade from active attention. The fix is what high-performing teams call the Rhythm of Business — a structured cadence of weekly check-ins, monthly alignment audits, and quarterly strategic reviews that function like refresh cycles, reactivating strategic priorities before drift becomes visible damage. There is a counterintuitive trap here worth naming. Large initiatives move slower — not because they're less important, but because of what Yale's dynamics model calls self-gravity: the weight of commitments in a large system creates inertia that reduces velocity by up to 50%. The structural fix is to link team support rhythms directly to project variability — what the research calls roll-amplitude to streak-waviness correlation — so that small perturbations get amplified into self-sustained correction cycles rather than ignored until they become crises. Only 22% of organizations currently run formal alignment audits, meaning 78% are flying without a diagnostic instrument. The synthesis, CallMe, is this: structured systems provide the why and what, KPIs make progress visible, and feedback loops ensure continuous alignment. But none of it holds without a self-correcting rhythm built into the organization's operating calendar. Alignment isn't a destination you arrive at and maintain passively. It is a living system that decays without intentional refresh. The alignment architect's final job is to stop treating velocity as a launch condition and start treating it as a design requirement — one that must be engineered into every recurring ritual, every audit, every cadence. Build the rhythm, CallMe. The system will sustain itself.