Author: Y. Seo (@momotarou / Japan)Role: Metanist — Human × AI Understanding ArchitectAI Collaboration: AI Understanding SupportORCID iD: https://orcid.org/0009-0005-7669-0612 Abstract This paper extends Post-Optimization Societies by introducing the framework of Cognitive Sovereignty Conflicts, examining structural tensions emerging when multiple cognitive agents — human, artificial, and institutional — compete or interact within shared coherence environments. While technological integration is often framed as a coordination enhancement process, the proposed model argues that persistent AI participation may generate instability not through capability failure but through sovereignty overlap, interpretive authority divergence, and coherence-control friction. Conflict arises not from error. It emerges from competing control logics. 1. Cognitive Sovereignty as a Structural Variable Cognitive sovereignty refers to: The capacity of an agent or system to define, stabilize, and regulate its own interpretive, decision, and coherence structures. Modern civilizations increasingly distribute this capacity. 2. AI Integration and Sovereignty Overlap AI-integrated environments introduce: Machine-optimized decision layers Algorithmic recommendation regimes Automated interpretive mediation Feedback-driven adaptation loops Sovereignty boundaries blur. 3. Sources of Sovereignty Conflict Instability may emerge through: Divergent optimization objectives Human interpretive priorities vs machine metrics Institutional control frameworks vs adaptive systems Coherence stabilization mismatches Conflict may be structural rather than adversarial. 4. Control Instability Dynamics Competing cognitive systems produce: Control instability — conditions where no single coherence logic fully governs system behavior. Local rationality does not guarantee global stability. 5. Perceived Agency vs Structural Agency Agents may experience: Illusions of autonomy Dependency masking Interpretive displacement Delegated cognition misrecognition Sovereignty perception diverges from operational reality. 6. Stability Implications Unresolved cognitive sovereignty conflicts may generate: Decision inconsistency Coherence fragmentation Coordination degradation Latent systemic fragility Stability becomes architecture-sensitive. Conclusion Cognitive Sovereignty Conflicts reframe AI-era tensions as structural interactions between overlapping coherence-control systems rather than simple human–machine opposition. Future stability regimes may depend on explicit sovereignty boundary design and coherence-compatible governance architectures. ※ Series Declaration This work is part of the Understanding Capitalism series. The series explores value formation, cognitive mediation, and structural transformations of economic perception.