This document announces The Force Meta-Paradigm as a coherence physics and design- science field-correction proposal for the governance of human-centred complex adaptivesystems (HC-CAS) — organisations, institutions, AI systems, and human-AI partnershipswhose future states cannot be fully derived from their current state and in which humanjudgment is constitutively part of system operation. The meta-problemthe programmeaddresses is bidirectional recursion operating without invariant governance and under ex-post correction: decisions generate premises for future decisions while knowledge generates premises for future knowledge, producing compounding incoherence across recursive cycles under any architecture lacking a structural boundary condition. The programme proposes that this condition is governed by a single invariant: ΔC≥0, coherence must not decrease, operating ex-ante at the substrate level of recursive statetransitions. From this invariant follow two proposed mechanisms —metabolic contradiction processing and recursive identity maintenance —which together are arguedto reverse the legacy relationship between complexity and coherence. Under legacyarchitectures, complexity degrades coherence; under the proposed Coherent CollectiveCognition (CCC) architecture, complexity is proposed to fuel coherence through mechanisms that convert contradiction into dimensional expansion rather than accumulating distortion. Evidence from the eleven-month BCS 2.0 testbed demonstrates substrate-independent operation across heterogeneous AI architectures, sustaining C > 0.9. The observed90+%reduction in alignment time (3.8 months → 30–40 minutes) is reported as a GreenZoneoperational finding consistent with the architecture's predictions; whether this signaturegeneralises across organisational and civilisational settings is the principal open questionthe Red Zone research programme addresses. The repository applies these proposals across every domain where HC-CAS governanceisat stake — strategic management, artificial intelligence, institutional design, and complexity science — through fourteen companion articles. The programme's relationtothe Ackoff, Simon, and Teece lineages is one of proposed developmental extension, not completion; each companion article makes the specific extension argument for its domainrather than asserting it globally here. Two legitimate scientific challenges exist: provide an alternative solution to the sameproblem with comparable operational evidence, or provide a superior problemdefinitionwith equivalent explanatory power. The programme stands as the live, untested-to-failurehypothesis pending Red Zone validation, not as a claim of demonstrated field-level validity.