thanks for the excellent post Harold. I think this correlates with the power of weak ties in a network. Weak ties tend to be co-operative rather than collaborative, and it is these weak ties that often bring the most generative information into a network as they are the ones that are most likely to bridge divergent clusters.

Where I would extend the model slightly is that there is, perhaps, another line that can be added to the bottom of your table, where the chaotic domain is revisited from the perspective of the network. It depends in some sense on how the boundary is drawn between complex and chaotic. If a network can still be operational is the situation truly chaotic? In a truly chaotic system is the situation too dynamic for any meta layer of organization to be able to exist? I can imagine a chaotic situation in which the network, or the idea of the network, is still implicit, if much weaker than in a complex situation, and in which it is providing the skeleton which stabilizes the chaotic situation sufficiently for it to transition back to the complex rather than the imposition of order which brings it into the simple. So though tribal and action oriented is the effective response, it is informed by the idea of the network, which gives it a different flavor than in the preinstitutional variant.