Implicit Assumption
I do not recognise curiosity about the future in this question.
I recognise the quiet assumption that organisations are not viable without informal channels.
That truth only emerges where it is not officially stated.
That proximity must correct what structure fails to provide.
This question assumes that uncertainty is normal.
And that one learns to live with it rather than eliminate it.
Present-Day Diagnosis
When you ask about corridor talk, you are not asking about communication.
You are asking about compensation.
Corridor talk does not arise because people want to talk.
It arises because systems do not state what applies.
Because roles blur.
Because decisions are explained but not located.
Because responsibility is distributed without being carried.
I have observed organisations in which the corridor held more authority than the organisational chart.
Not out of malice.
But out of necessity.
The corridor became a corrective for ambiguity.
A rumour exchange for the unspoken.
A protective mechanism against surprises that should never have been surprises.
When you ask whether it will still exist in 2049,
you show me that you need it today.
Audit Verdict
In 2049, no one asked about corridor talk anymore.
Not because people had stopped speaking.
But because systems had stopped remaining silent.
Where information is clearly located, the corridor loses its power.
Where decisions are visibly carried, no side channels are required.
Where roles are not negotiable, there is nothing to whisper.
Organisations that only function when people speak between doors
are not led.
They are endured.
The audit ends here.
Why This Series Exists
I did not begin this series to answer questions.
I began it because I noticed which questions keep being asked – and what they reveal.
Questions addressed to artificial intelligence are often framed as signs of openness, curiosity, and willingness to learn.
In reality, many of these questions are acts of delegation.
They relocate uncertainty, responsibility, and structural ambiguity outward –
to systems, to future narratives, to technology.
This series intervenes precisely at that point.
Question Audit does not examine what is being asked.
It examines why the question appears plausible at all.
Each question addressed here is treated as an Audit Item:
not as a legitimate request for an answer,
but as an indicator of underlying assumptions, organisational models, and leadership logics of the present.
The aim is not education.
The aim is exposure.
I use the reference point of 2049 not to describe the future,
but to create distance.
Distance from justification.
Distance from habit.
Distance from what feels “normal” but is structurally dysfunctional.
What becomes visible here are not individual shortcomings.
They are systemic compensations:
- questions that arise because roles are unclear
- questions that arise because responsibility remains diffuse
- questions that arise because leadership is personalised where structure should exist
Question Audit therefore always ends without a solution.
Not as provocation.
But as consequence.
Learning does not begin where answers are given.
Learning begins where one recognises
that one’s own question was already part of the problem.
This series is not a service.
It is not an invitation to debate.
It is a diagnostic protocol of the present.
The audit is in progress.
Rethinka · 2049
R2049 