Working Thesis Late-modern cultures have come to depend – historically and functionally – upon legible affective orientations, most prominently institutionalised optimism, as conditions of social coordination, moral recognition, and progress-oriented narrative continuity, such that experiential responses resisting the optimism–pessimism binary become culturally illegible and are consequently pathologised as personal dysfunction rather than interpreted as situated perception. Abstract This working paper argues that contemporary late-modern institutions depend upon the production of legible affect – most prominently the normative performance of optimism – as a historically emergent and functionally stabilising condition of social coordination, moral recognition, and progress-oriented narrative continuity. Extending theories of administrative legibility beyond populations and environments into the domain of emotional orientation, the study contends that the familiar optimism–pessimism binary operates less as a psychological description than as a governance mechanism that standardises permissible relations to the future. Situating this claim in relation to existing critical analyses of affect and normativity, the paper proposes that legibility provides the formal structure linking happiness mandates (Ahmed), optimistic attachment (Berlant), and the privatisation of distress (Fisher) to broader regimes of coordination and temporal expectation. Therapeutic discourse, wellness culture, and productivity-oriented self-regulation are thereby interpreted as mechanisms of affective domestication that translate structurally induced uncertainty into individual responsibilities for mindset management. Institutions primarily regulate the expression of affect, yet sustained normative pressures feed back into the organisation of felt experience itself, producing subjects for whom illegible orientations toward the future appear as personal failure rather than contextually intelligible perception. By reframing affective normativity as infrastructural to late-modern governance rather than incidental to psychological health, the analysis identifies illegibility itself as a potential site of experiential autonomy that resists both mandated optimism and oppositional pessimism. The argument contributes to political theory, critical psychology, and philosophy of culture by specifying the shared formal features through which legibility operates across administrative, technical, and affective domains, and by situating emotional life within modern regimes of expectation structured by narratives of progress. This document serves as a conceptual foundation for a larger investigation into affect, legibility, temporality, and intelligent governance in late modernity.