v4: This preprint represents a revised and expanded version of an earlier working paper previously released on Zenodo. Digitalsu adjudication systems increasingly mediate procedural access to courts and regulatory institutions. While digitization can improve administrative efficiency and accessibility, weaknesses in workflow transparency and system observability may unintentionally generate recursive procedural cycles that delay effective adjudication. This article develops a conceptual framework for analysing how digitally mediated administrative workflows influence adjudicatory viability. The framework introduces four analytical constructs: Recursive Administrative Obstruction (RAO), Registry-Induced Infructuosity (RII), the Hope–Latency Gap (HLG), and the Institutional Cost of Procedural Infructuosity (ICPI). Drawing on institutional systems analysis and observations from digitally mediated filing processes, the study models the dynamic relationship between procedural latency and adjudicatory viability. The analysis suggests that prolonged administrative recursion may widen the divergence between the formal availability of legal remedies and their practical effectiveness. The article concludes by proposing architecture-level governance reforms for digital adjudication infrastructures, including workflow observability, procedural transparency, and institutional monitoring of latency risks within digital justice systems. This document is a preprint and has not yet undergone peer review.